The dismal performance of our parliamentarians, many of them having degrees and wealth, raises questions about the efficacy of the country’s education system
It is fascinating to see how good behaviour has been correlated to better education. “look at that fellow, unread and uncouth!”, can be translated into many languages, and will find resonance as a common saying. And yet we find, especially in politics, that the highest degrees may have been acquired by people demonstrating crass behaviour. This used to shock us but has become unremarkable now.
Parliament, that just finished its term has had a terrible run. It was the least effective and the most disrupted ever in Indian history. Episodes of mayhem have been telecast live — chairs thrown, bad language and even pepper spray have been used within the precincts. Work often ended at eleven in the morning leading to faint, and little heard cries demanding that Members of Parliament be paid only for the hours they work. It is not likely to have mattered to most parliamentarians — this money was insignificant compared to their wealth and other income.
What should also impress is the education received by most MPs. Not only are they rich but well-educated too. According to parliamentary data, 46 per cent are graduates, another 30 per cent hold a post- graduation degree, and six per cent a doctorate. Only two per cent are classified as ‘under-matric', which means they have not passed the national certification examination normally conducted at age 16, but which can be taken anytime. This was a well-educated Parliament. And more so than any other time in the past. PRS legislative mapped the education levels of parliamentarians since the 1950s and found that the “number of parliamentarians without a secondary education has decreased from 23 per cent in 1952 to three per cent in 2009”. India has had the most well-educated and the least productive Parliament in its democratic history.
If one were to only look to this as evidence, where is the case to invest in educationIJ There seems to be no link between more education and the ability to deliver the task at hand. This is what industry has been bemoaning too — graduates are not employable. What is wrong here that, despite the inputs and the investment, our people are not able to deliver according to the requirements of the jobIJ Or could it be that — gasp — we are not measuring the same things in education and in employment.
Industry-academia partnerships have become clichéd now in eduspeak. There are many around and they will take their time to become productive. Some will work better than others. But it is not enough to simply speak of changing the curriculum or even to make it more dynamic and hope the problem will be resolved. There can never be a single point solution to such a disconnect between how we prepare for life and what we have to deliver.
Take the example of politics — whether office politics or national politics. What are the skills required to survive and growIJ Is the current curriculum delivering anything usefulIJ If your answer is no, then ask the next question: Is it the curriculum and the national framework at fault or is there a problem in delivery and expectationsIJ If a teacher has to deliver to parental expectations of high marks, does he/she have the time to explore the politics of the assigned storyIJ Or to build the skills of teamwork and its heart-breaks that are essential for learning how to lobby in the real worldIJ Does a student ever learn to manage his/her own brandIJ
The fact that a few do learn these skills at school is a wonder, but systemically we have eroded our capacity to deliver real skills that are required to become successful in complex environments. It is time our schools started investing in real skills — those of influence, analysis, persuasion, surviving a crisis, managing risks and returns and of course building sustainable assets and more. These are beyond ‘soft skills' — these are skills for survival and growth of the individual, communities and society.