The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is considering introducing two levels of Science and Social Science in Classes 9 and 10, allowing students to choose a “standard” or “advanced” level of learning. A similar model already exists for Mathematics (standard and an easier, “basic” level) for Class 10 students.
According to the board, this will allow students who wish to pursue these subjects in Class 11 and 12 to get a headstart in their discipline of choice. Studying the “basic” level of some subjects will take pressure off.
Details on how the scheme will be implemented are not available. However, this command economy approach to knowledge is not just flawed, but also dangerous. Here are four reasons why.
First, it furthers the factory-fication of schools, where the goal of education is to create a product fit for the job market, and education is not the goal in itself. The idea basically says: If you wish to study subject X, focus all your attention on it, and other, less important subjects can fall by the wayside. What knowledge is “less important” for a 13-14 year old? At this stage, young minds need rounded exposure to all sorts of knowledge, influences, ways of thinking. If math teaches you logical thinking, social sciences teach you analytical skills, Literature teaches empathy. Science provokes curiosity, and spurs you to ask questions and look for answers.
Apart from all of this, and perhaps the most important, is the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself. The beauty and wonder — and power — of being informed, of learning new ways to use your mind, the delight of realising you can solve problems, articulate your thoughts. Looking at the world with new eyes, because you now know more about its working, and it is communicating with you in new ways. Which of these is less important for a teenager?
Let’s look at it this way: If you are a civil engineer and you travel to a new and beautiful country, will you limit yourself to only looking at its bridges and roads, because only that concerns your specialisation of choice? For the young, the whole world is new and exciting. Why should they be limited to only learning about some of its aspects?
The new proposal, thus, is one more example of the poverty of pedagogical imagination. You study so you can get good grades, you get good grades so you go to “good” (which means branded) colleges, you go to good colleges so you land a good job. Focus only on what aids the end goal of a pay package, and forget everything else. Offering such an “option” to young people can stunt their personalities, shrink their minds, and basically keep them from enjoying everything this beautiful world has to offer to them.
Second, in the hyper-competitive society that is India, such classification just creates a hierarchy of “advanced” and “basic level” students. It is true that different students have different aptitudes, learning abilities, and learning support at home. But the answer is not to give them an easier way to pass exams. The “weak” student deserves knowledge as much as the brightest person in class. It is the schools’ responsibility to find better, more imaginative ways to teach them, instead of condemning them to sub-standard syllabi.
most read
It is also true that academics can create a lot of pressure on students. But for that, the solution is to destigmatise “failure” and not attach inordinate importance to grades, instead of branding some students as “only deserving the easy way out”.
Third, the best higher education institutes are acknowledging that knowledge does not exist in water-tight silos of science, arts, and commerce. For example, IITs, the holy grail of engineering education, are offering courses in humanities. The CBSE’s new proposal, meanwhile, is a step in the opposite direction. Putting teenagers in straitjackets of science or social science streams will rob them of choice. If they wish to switch streams later in life, their base in the other subjects will be very weak.
Fourth, in a world where misinformation is constantly leaching into your brain via the internet, the only bulwark against propaganda is quality education. Students who studied “advance” levels of science and neglected social science, or focused on history, civics but ignored physics, will be more vulnerable to misinformation, and mischievous information, of all kinds. The very aim of education — creating confident individuals equipped to deal with the world — will thus be defeated.
