My article on Current State of Education in Nepal is featured on Republica dated March 10, 2016.
http://myrepublica.com/opinion/story/38432/change-the-school.html
Here is the final version.
Current State of
Education in Nepal
Martin
Luther King (MLK) stated1-“The function of education is to teach one
to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character—that
is the goal of true education.” While nobody disagrees with MLK, the goal is
far from achieved—in both developing and developed countries alike. Few
countries are closer to this goal, whereas many others are still very far-away.
Unfortunately, Nepal falls into the latter group. While the number of schools
in both secondary and higher secondary level in Nepal has risen significantly
over the last decade, the quality of education has been dissatisfactory. Part
of it is due to our failure to update curriculum on a timely manner and make
policies that address not only short-term needs but also define where we are
headed as a nation. However, in the era of smartphones and technology, the new
policies are doomed to fail if we don’t redefine the way we teach and learn in
classrooms and beyond.
In
recent years, Nepal has seen an increase in the number of private schools.
Although Ministry of Education (MoE) has a long list of pre-requisites and
basic infrastructure for new schools to get registration, they are hardly
implemented. Most schools are run in a single building with limited resources
for students’ overall development. As a matter of fact, there are only a
handful of schools that fulfill the criteria that MoE requires. Private schools
are attracting students by labeling themselves as “English medium school.” This
is a blatant and highly marketable lie, as Shyam Sharma pointed out in his
recent article “Whither Education Policy?”2 on My Republica. “It is
the lack of resources and training”, Sharma concludes, “Teachers don’t teach
well in English, and students don’t learn well in it.” As recent statistics
suggest, many public schools are also switching to English medium which Sharma
hints as a recipe for disaster for public sector education. Even private sector
education, with an exception of handful of schools, is not immune to such
disaster. Therefore, time has come for us to pause for a moment and define our
educational objectives. Good schools and practices should be awarded, whereas
ill-prepared schools should be kept under close scrutiny. After all, the
overall goal of education is holistic development of students—not only as
better thinkers, but also as better citizens. Like MLK pointed out, our schools
should focus on building character with intelligence.
The
current trend of westernization in our school system is very disturbing. Private
schools using English as a marketable entity, in a nutshell, underscores
colonial mindset that merits supremacy based on the language spoken. It is a
dangerous thing to do, as it’s not about how well somebody can speak English,
nor is it about using English as a means of instruction that improves the
quality. The real issue is much more complex than the language itself. Learning
in English alone does not make us better scholars, learning effectively does. We
are not teaching our kids how to think, how to analyze context, how to
synthesize materials, and how to write effectively. It does not matter which
language we use to teach any of the above, as long as we are effectively doing
it. These are basic communication skills that students will carry forward to
their workplace in the future. Our education system, at the moment, is
analogous to banking practices as Paulo Freire suggests in his “Pedagogy of the oppressed”3—where
students are depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Our methodology has
been nothing but narrative where the words are perceived for words and not for
their transforming power. Students learn “Four times four is sixteen”, and
memorize and repeat these phrases without perceiving what that really means. Our
system regards students as mere “containers” to be filled by teachers—where the
teachers are judged by how much (not how well) they fill the “containers” and
students by how much they let themselves to be filled. Instead of active communication,
teachers deposit and students patiently receive, memorize and repeat.
In
what is already flawed methodology, adding a foreign language as a means of
instruction does more harm than good. It is likely that the key concepts and
ideas in science, philosophy, and fine arts will not be completely understood
when they are taught in a foreign language, especially by teachers who are not
qualified and trained, in an environment that lacks resources. As our system is
very examination-centric, students will pass the exams, sometimes often with
flying colors, yet will not understand the breadth of the materials they
studied. This practice does not encourage creativity, not does it enhance
knowledge as Paulo argues “Knowledge emerges only through invention and
re-invention, through restless, impatient and hopeful inquiry.” And that comes
across quite easily, as many of our graduates who go abroad for higher
education, cannot cope up in a research environment which demands much more
than memorizing facts and definitions. Students who stay in the country are
also not prepared for the job market. Since we don’t focus on experiential
learning—as how the concepts we learn apply to the real world, both at micro
and macro level, we are not producing many entrepreneurs. The rise in
unemployment rate, exodus of youth every year are just few of many effects of
our fallacious education system. One needs a solid understanding of the
principles to gain the ability to analyze and draw conclusions. That
understanding only comes when materials are taught critically. We ought to
encourage an active communication between teachers and students—where teachers
and students both are educators and learners.
Our
problem is deep-rooted in the very practice of banking education. Even in
higher education setting, our students repeatedly memorize, repeat, and
plagiarize in exams/projects as reflected by the homogeneity of answers. We
don’t inspire students to be innovative and original by awarding excellence on
length and not for creativity. We need not only better educational policies,
but also student-centric educational practices and that will mean we will have to
overhaul our existing mindset. In this era, we will also need to use technology
to our advantage. Collaboration through technology lets teachers to promote
teamwork and link their students to classrooms and resources across the globe.
In a country like Nepal, where resources are hard to get, technology can
provide a leap forward in the way we teach and in the way we learn and sharpen
our creativity.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment