Today, in my state of Tamil Nadu, the Union government’s three-language policy for students in school is a burning issue. Tamil Nadu has followed a two-language policy and has always been strongly opposed to the three-language plan. It is seen as a way of bringing Hindi into school education.
This time, though, the Union government has modulated its stance by stating that the third language could be any Indian language and not compulsorily Hindi. Though this seems reasonable, this strategy is obviously a Trojan Horse. It is extremely unlikely that a state would choose the language of a neighbouring state or any other state for that matter. In the case of Tamil Nadu, do we choose Malayalam, Telugu or Kannada? Choosing one over any of the others may complicate inter-state relationships. By default, Hindi becomes the easier choice. My guess is that the Union government is rooting for this to happen.
For the moment, let us keep aside this language problem. A lot of ink has been and will be spent on this contested subject. Instead, let us talk about a more nuanced issue that has great relevance at this time of the year when students across the country are writing their Class X board examinations. This is a matter for which a typical bureaucratic one-size-fits-all solution may not work.
After passing the Class X board exam, every student has to compulsorily choose a set of subjects for Classes XI and XII. This is one of the most important decisions they make in their lives and it is done at the age of fifteen or sixteen. It would be fair to say that at that age, most children are clueless about what they want to do in life. Even if they have some idea, it is still very nascent. Students are not mature enough to take such a definitive decision; yet we force them into that corner. The five subjects chosen determine the courses a student can apply for when they go to college. This further restricts their job options. This one early decision charts the life trajectory
of many.
In a society like ours, where parents and teachers play such a dominant and dominating role in a child’s life, the selection is often made by them and forced upon the student. The parents, if academically aware, manoeuvre their children into subjects that they believe will lead them to engineering, computer science, accounting or medical courses in college. Teachers and the school establishment, on their part, push their case based on the number of marks scored. They will not allow students to choose a subject in which they have not scored well. Schools, both public and private, are assessed by parents on the basis of the pass percentage and the marks/ranking of students. Our schools have a ‘tradition’ of putting up the names of toppers on an honours wall. Adding to this is the all-pervading peer pressure. I recently saw a picture of a parent peering over a school’s compound wall as her child went to write the board exam. The anxiety evident in the photograph highlights the level of social stress and coercion influencing the thoughts and the decisions that parents make on behalf of their children. There is actually no choice for the student.
This problem is further exacerbated by the limited combination of subjects that schools offer in Class XI. Though many education boards allow for a wide range of combinations, most institutions offer conventional sets, such as Physics, Chemistry, Math, Biology or Computer science or Economics, Accountancy, Business Studies and Math. The sciences remain at the top of the pecking order. Other subjects like Psychology or Sociology may be part of another ‘minor’ set.
Most schools will not permit a mixture of subjects that cut across these lots. Though they will bring up issues such as scheduling and portion sizes, the real reason is the inflexibility that is embedded in our education system. On paper, many boards provide more subject options, but schools select only the traditional collection with a few extras thrown in. I understand that upskilling in certain specific areas is required for each college course. But there needs to be more flexibility in the subjects offered and the mix that students get to choose from. There could also be the possibility of replacing a few subjects after Class XI if the student did not enjoy them. In an ideal situation, children in school should be exposed to a wide range of subjects, including all manner of arts, without any boxing into groups. This will give them a broad foundation on which to make the choices that will impact their future lives. All this will need a recalibration in schools, colleges, and the latter’s method of admission. More than anything else, educational institutions must be willing to invest in every child as an individual.
Marking in the humanities and aesthetic subjects is not absolute like Math or Physics. It is inherently subjective and descriptive. This means that the marks of a humanities or arts-centred combination will be less, consequently bringing down the school’s own ranking. The more students take the well-trodden path, the better it is for everybody: schools, parents and the marketplace that ultimately controls everything. School administrators will inform us that finding good teachers for many ‘alternative’ subjects is difficult. They will also explain that the cost-benefit ratio makes it uneconomical for them to offer a subject for which there are only a few takers. These points are all valid. But we must courageously break this cycle of limitations. If not, we will continue to produce teachers only for certain subjects and force students to choose specific combinations, generation after generation.
This bundling of certain subjects and the prioritising of sciences have led to a social problem that goes unnoticed. The engineers and MBAs of the world, in general, lack any understanding of society, people, politics and aesthetics because these subjects are kept away from science combinations offered in schools. Having taught socio-aesthetics to a number of such college students, I am stumped by how isolated they are from societal realities. In fact, humanities departments in engineering colleges are seen as trouble centres and not treated with the respect given to the ‘hardcore’ departments. The humanities continue to be marginalised and considered irrelevant in society. This mindset is also a reason for restricted humanities choices in schools.
Whenever we come across children who have done something totally different from the subjects they studied in Classes XI and XII, we acknowledge the ridiculousness of it all. Yet, when it comes to our children, we toe the line. We also do not recognise that most children who have been able to move away from the beaten track come from caste, gender, or class privilege. For the majority who go through this rigmarole, these decisions bind them forever.
T.M. Krishna is a leading Indian musician and a prominent public intellectual
