For that cutting edge

At a personal level tuition seems a rational solution to classroom learning but at a social level it is a disaster because double the resources are being spent, writes ELIZABETH ROY.

SCHOOLS ARE not just providers of knowledge and skills. They are also mechanisms that we use in order to socialise our children to fit a society that we have crafted for ourselves. Naturally expectations are high among the elite to have their children join the elite. Among the non-elite, parents are under pressure to aspire for their children what they themselves had never aspired for - upward mobility in the socio-economic context. Either way, you need a competitive edge to reach the target. And today it is only that great Indian phenomenon, TUITION, which can virtually buy you that all-important edge.

The present schooling systems, be it the ICSE, the CBSE, the State Board or whatever else, are unable to provide education of quality. This could be due to overload, or due to lack of study material, lack of quality time from the teacher, or just incompetent teachers. Whatever the reason, parents fraught with anxiety, unable to make up this deficit by themselves, either because they don't have the time or the knowledge to provide inputs at that level, choose tuitions to make up for a basically faulty system.

The other more visible issue involved is that of getting a particular edge in a competitive system. Brilliant and other such reputed tutorials seem to be delivering the goods, giving the student that cutting edge performance. He/she goes past the entrance into the IIT or the administrative cadres. Would the students have done it on their own? In any of our competitive examinations a few marks here or there can make a huge difference. Therefore, in the tuitions they learn along with the subject, how to score, how to do "well" in an examination. In fact, it doesn't matter at all whether you are understanding or not when you are trying to get a competitive edge. In these situations it might even detract to approach knowledge or learning or comprehension. Tuitions necessarily have become package exercises.

Consequently, in response to market forces, tuition centres are mushrooming - some racketeers, some doing honest to goodness work. With the average tuition fee per class (one on one) going up to around Rs. 250, these centres have also become excellent business propositions. When well run they provide employment, better remuneration, flexible work hours for the teacher, and more significantly, they provide great service to society.

To cite an example, Shanti Institute in Chennai is one of the better organised and more sought-after tuition centres. Apart from the intensive group coaching scheduled for the IIT and similar entrance examinations, it has a highly organised school tuition system pitched at three levels and costs to meet the requirements of the different boards, ICSE, CBSE, State etc. Classes are closely monitored; biweekly tests scheduled, logs of marks and curriculum coverage meticulously maintained. The students' progress is closely tracked. One can even actually ask for a creative and challenging teacher who can bring the subject alive!! The democratic power relationship makes for good business and accountability.

Most of the public eagerly suggests that the need for tuition is a direct reflection on a teacher and his or her teaching capabilities. Before endorsing that, one needs to look at the larger system of education within which the teacher functions. At one end of the spectrum you might actually have teachers under- teaching in the hope that students will go to them in the more profitable tuition mode. At the other end are very capable teachers trying their best unsuccessfully to motivate and inspire students. Any number of factors contributes to the disaster. Overcrowding in the class, complete lack of interest among the students for the subject. Maybe they just want to be spoon-fed on an examination basis.

Tuition is also a direct comment on the parents' total involvement and single-minded concern with their children's learning process and a lack of affirmative action. Partly this is right, partly this is wrong. Parents are very involved with the outcomes of their children's learning process. What perhaps they are not involved in, is actually the learning process itself. They worry about the end rather than the means to an end. There are parents who may not actually be interested in their children learning anything as long as they can achieve the right kind of score or the right kind of entrance into particular institutions. There really is too much affirmative action. The children might benefit considerably if the parents pull back a little in terms of pressurising them to perform, and instead get more involved in the learning process, not necessarily as complementary teachers (which they may not be in a position to do) but more in a supporting, monitoring, enquiring role. The important question to be asked is, why are we demanding such incredible examination writing capacity from our children, when in the real world it matters so little. On the other hand, abilities such as creativity, ability to think broadly, good understanding of linkages and implications, ability to communicate, to organise, to manage are your entry to the upward mobility track in a performance oriented organisation. The schools are overloaded with academics. One needs to take a fresh look at the curriculum to see how much of that is really necessary in this day and age and whether delaying it a little and providing a sounder foundation would not achieve more in the long run.

Quality of education also depends on teaching children how to learn, how to study. It is assumed that they know how to take notes, to organise their work, to do referencing, to manage time, to prepare for an examination. Our schooling system enables children to learn something but there is no time for practice and the tuitions are providing the practice. Maybe there should be lecture classes and then tutorial classes where you actually do practise, to "fix the learning" as it were. But then how do the schools or for that matter, anyone, schedule and plan and do things when you cram them with so much absurd curriculum coverage. The test of a school is what it does with the average and below average mind, whether it is able to help these children to bloom and learn, develop self-confidence, pick up skills and excel. No one can deny that a good monitoring system that identifies students in need, at the right time, at the right place and provides follow up and support is the answer to the problem. How feasible it is, whether it is actually the art of the possible remains to be looked at.

It's always nice to talk in terms of who the stakeholders are, in education. There is the student, the teacher, the Board of Education, the parents and the rest of society applying pressure on all and sundry, and an illusion is being created by saying "let's all work together." In truth stakeholders do not work together because there is a power hierarchy within them and parents and students most often find that they are not empowered. In addition, most parents are so hopelessly overjoyed that they had even got a foot into the school and had their children accepted, leave alone educated, that there is no question of an open two-way discussion. Right now it is a sellers market and for hope they look towards tuition.

At a personal level tuition as a solution seems rational, at a social level it is a disaster because double the resources are being spent, perhaps four times the resources, to achieve the same basic education. It is a shameful waste of scarce resources and a direct indictment of our education system. Perhaps it is also an indictment on the selection procedure, since in a competitive system the primary goal is to eliminate people so that you are left with the necessary numbers, not necessarily the best.

The elite institutions have completely lost faith in the education and evaluation system of the schools and their boards of education and, as a result, they do not accept the grades the student has painstakingly earned. They have their own, more credible entrance examinations to really rate the child. It is as if you are doing the boards for no reason at all. Even a 100 per cent does not guarantee you an entrance into an IIT or the National Law School or... To qualify, you still have to do entrance exams. You have to do your CAT, your GMAT, your GRE, each one with a different method of appraisal in preparation for which you take tuition. What equity is there in a system which is engineered to be 'better' on sales pitch alone?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : It's work and play too
Next     : Key aspects of car care