Opinion Who ate his homework?

Second,the minister seems to be giving contradictory signals. The idea of a single national exam,that then becomes the basis for admission,will be even more trauma inducing for the following reason. One of the weaknesses of the Indian system is that our admissions criteria are focused on a single measure. Whether it is percentage or percentile,national tests or differentiated exams,numbers or grades,is not the issue. The issue is whether we can allow multiple criteria to be used in admission: track record over a long period,essays,references,interviews,etc. The real source of strength of the US system is that it allows for multiple criteria of assessment,often completely at the educators’ discretion. So your fate does not hang on just one shot. But such a multiple,sensitive system requires one thing we do not allow: educators to exercise judgment and discretion. Sibal’s proposals,on the face of it,seem to increase the stakes in exams,not reduce them. The only way they can be genuinely reduced is by broad-based assessments. But our system does not have structures of trust to allow this to happen. If Sibal can push this,he will create a genuine revolution; not another counterfeit centralisation.

Third,there has to be clarity over the role of Class 10 exams and Class 12 exams. The original idea was the Class 10 exam gives you a comparative benchmark on general skills and aptitudes; Class 12 is more specialised by different streams. The content of the Class 10 exam can be debated. But can we avoid some benchmark that allows us to make comparative assessments across schools? In short,while the content of exams needs to be looked at,it is revolutionary over-zeal to promise a system without these benchmarks. In fact,one of the reasons there is little accountability at lower levels of schooling is precisely because there are no comparative quality benchmarks.

Finally,the real source of daily trauma is the fact that the quality of teaching is woefully inadequate. Teachers themselves often do not have the basic understanding that they can impart to students; as a result most students (and their parents) have to do double schooling. Removing the trauma here will require massive overhauling of BEd and teachers training programmes. What is interesting is that in all the proposals out for discussion,the focus is either on selection mechanisms (exams) or some content overhaul (curriculum). The real challenge of the system is going to be raising quality at all levels,and making sure weak schools also do better. A focus exclusively on selection mechanisms and content does not address this problem and can sometimes work at cross purposes.

While Sibal has rightly gestured that the curriculum needs to be looked at,the National Curriculum Framework is somewhat weaker on mathematics and the basic sciences than it is on social sensitivity. In short,the trauma that worries Sibal is about how education is embedded in a larger context,and won’t easily be addressed by ad hoc interventions,no matter how bold they sound. Education reform requires persistence,not a Jacobin 100-day purge.

Similarly,in higher education the noise coming out is also a bit contradictory. There are significant variances in the Knowledge Commission’s and Yashpal Committee’s recommendations. These may seem small in relation to the broad areas of agreement,but they may end up making the difference between sensible regulation and over-regulation. There is still something of a tension between the emphasis on autonomy,experimentation and the demands of homogenisation and uniformity. Yashpal himself in his interviews is proposing far more centralisation than is warranted. The requirement of portability of credits is a good idea. But it is otiose to think that it can apply across all universities. For it to be effective,it has to be built ground up,through clusters of compatible universities coordinating among themselves.

The proposals still do not get away from a fundamental flaw in our approach to higher education: treating the system as one undifferentiated whole,so that reforms apply uniformly. What would autonomy mean if universities had no discretion over admission criteria,since they would be bound to a single test? What would it mean if there is fee regulation? How would diversity of institutions flourish in the public system if they were all committed to the same pay scales and similar curriculum? Where is the strategy for public universities that will still be at the heart of easing the supply constraint? While the right noises are being made about attracting talent back,can this be done without some strategy for agglomerating the best in a few institutions so that new benchmarks can be set?

In short,many of Sibal’s proposals seem to be working at cross purposes. The logic of autonomy,diversity,experimentation and differentiation is very different from the logic of centralisation,standardisation,excessive curricularcoordination and a single national system. The difficulty is that we seem to want the former outcomes with instruments designed for the latter system. The success of the revolution will not be the bold pronouncement; it will depend on who takes it forward with care,clarity and consistency.

The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi express@expressindia.com