The Union Government must encourage four-year undergraduate courses if quality in school education is to be enhanced. The impact of the change will extend to every stage of education and to every area of human endeavour
The teachers’ associations of Delhi University invariably remain in news, mostly because of their differences with their own Vice-Chancellor or the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development or the University Grants Commission.
At this juncture, the controversial issue within the University is of introducing a four-year course at the undergraduate level, in place of the existing three-year courses. Before the implementation of the Kothari Commission recommendations that brought the 10+2+3 system, the undergraduate courses were only of two-year duration.
The three-year course, introduced after the 1968 National Policy on Education came into being, was not tinkered with by the policy on education in 1986, but it was revised in 1992. The obvious query from parents and students is: Why this drastic policy change that’ll have repercussions on the entire higher education systemIJ As there is little chance of it being implemented easily throughout the country, why is DU interested in creating another privileged classIJ Obviously, DU functionaries have dexterously delineated the justification for this ‘innovation’ as a landmark in the history of educational developments in the country.
Unfortunately, the university’s faculty has a vociferous group of status quoists who are against this move. The inside story, enunciated by the ‘comrades’, goes something like this: The four-year courses are being introduced under pressure from America; that it is anti-poor and would benefit only the rich elite.
The pro-changers claim that such courses are already available at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (Mumbai) and the Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore). Even Ambedkar University (Delhi) has introduced it without any protest from the Delhi-based comrades-in-academics. It is a well-known fact that the communists in India have intruded in educational institutions as a part of their strategy to sabotage the system and Congress, regularly pressured by them has yielded due to the exigencies of political support. In the Indian Council of Historical Research, the comrades took over rewriting history and highlighted, in glorious terms, the contribution of the communist parties towards the freedom struggle.
There is another angle to the present controversy. Foreign universities are keen to enter the Indian education market and the incumbent UPA Government has little option but to welcome them on their terms. The foreign providers would like four-year programmes so that student exchanges become easier. Further, the privileged would find it much easier to go West for higher education once they have completed a four-year under-graduate course.
It is a fact that the three-year duration courses provide practically no skills or pragmatic knowledge to young graduates to take up professional responsibilities in their area of expertise.
The planned four-year programmes would also offer an opportunity to young students from weaker sections to enter prestigious universities abroad. The experiences gained in the implementation of the three-year system and the quality of products in the fast-changing manpower requirements in the employment market, deserves a thorough scrutiny.
It is claimed that the need for such a change was discussed in the Academic Council of the DU in 2008 for the first time and received overwhelming support in the Executive Council and the Academic Council in the present context. It is clear to everyone that the dissent comes from the comrades under instructions from their ideological bosses, and not because of any academic or procedural consideration.
An idea whose time has come just cannot be accepted or discarded because it is liked by foreign providers and equally strongly disliked by the leftists. It needs to be examined dispassionately and in the national interest, without any politics being allowed to intrude in the professional analysis.
We lament the slide in learner attainments, which is similar to what is happening in teacher education. Had the Central and the State Government encouraged integrated courses in teacher preparation, the cognitive capital of India would have increased manyfold. The only other significant instance is that of DU successfully launching and running effectively a four-year course for teacher preparation for elementary schools.
The Union Government must encourage four-year courses if quality in school education is to be enhanced. Its impact would extend to every stage of education and to every area of human endeavour. India has its own experiences, apart from international trends, to bring in dynamism in its educational endeavours. It must not permit lethargy and rigidity to overtake the much-needed dynamism in the system. The HRD Ministry must support the DU in its proposed innovation, and prevent a handful of comrades from subverting the reforms.
(The writer is a recipient of Unesco’s Jan Amos Comenius Medal for outstanding contributions in research and innovations)