It is really good to discuss the most wide linkage that could be provided for facilitating majority of deprived children to get quality education through well informed resource material and network.
As far my knowledge goes in this regard, the network of NIOS has been primarily confined to the schools recognized by Central Board of Secondary Education and the deprived children get rarely any access to such schools. Various NGOs are working at the grass-root level. Hence, in addition to offering opportunities to the NGOs to get involved in the process of developing the context specific curriculum and implementing it with the deprived children that they come in contact , schools managed by the state government like that of SSA and Welfare schools could be designated as the 'contact centers' so as to take it to the grassroots . For this, a major effort is needed to be taken to prepare text material in local languages like Oriya apart from English and Hindi.
Involvement of interested individuals and organizations for spreading its effect could be a milestone in reaching out to the un- reached.
Before we look to evaluate the effectiveness of NIOS, let us stop to think and evaluate the effectiveness of the entire education system to deliver the desired impact.
The desired impact from education, as understood by the participating students and their parents (let us admit they matter most), is not purely academic achievement which may make their kids fit for "Babudom" of the colonial era. The expectation is that with the investment of time and money and the childhood in education, the student will have a better life through better earnings and better understanding of life issues, in the shortest possible time. It is only a minute percentage of participants who can be expected to excel in the academic disciplines alone, to be able to educate others. Just to remind, only 6% of the people are employed in the organized sector (including around 3% in Government), 94% need to earn their living through the unorganized sector.
Alas, this realization is missing in most of our planning and evaluation of education. Hence the very high rate of drop outs (90% by class 12?) very high percentage of educated non-employable candidates, despite major manpower shortages experienced by the economy. The net result is a huge mass of population ready to be exploited or ready to exploit, turning themselves to all kinds of 'isms, threatening the very fiber of our society. The threat from within is much bigger than the threat from outside, due t this failure alone.
We have to address this serious issue now, through a holistic approach to the problem. and we have to involve the common man and his opinion leaders to generate a ground level mobilization and commitment to help them achieve what they want rather than what we think they want.
This is where we think the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) systems can be used very effectively as they offer flexibility in learning by what ever means, but certification with national recognition and parity. These systems have so far been only minimally successful because community supported organizations have not come forward to generate awareness/demand, training/teaching and learning programs, to supplement the open system, and monitoring and control systems at grass root levels to ensure relevance, completeness and effectiveness.
In my view, where formal system of schooling is not ensuring quality education, as many studies have arrived at this conclusion, it is difficult to say about the quality of education in open schooling system. Why there should be different system of schooling, when right to education has been adopted in the country.
In my view, there should be common schooling system in the country-no private schools, no schools with special status. All the schools should follow the same norm, same facilities, same administrative and financial procedures, same fees, same books and curriculum throughout the country or state. Private players should come under the umbrella of Government system. Governments do have a greater role to play in ensuring proper implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the education programme. This will ensure inclusive education, covering entire population of the country.
Open schooling system and education through correspondence for children should not be encouraged. Education is the basic right of children and they must be brought under the purview of formal schooling system. We must not let the parents free for the silly excuses of denial of basic education to their children. On the one hand, we are compromising with the quality of education of masses, and on the other hand, we are expecting quality human resources for development of the country. Can we expect a convent-educated fluently English speaking student and a student of government schooling system to compete at par in any competition in today's world? Do we have the figure as to how many government employees are sending their children to government schools? This will certainly be an eye-opener for the advocates of dual system of schooling in the country.
Our children are our future. Every child has the right to be educated, no matter whether he /she is rich or poor. Open Schooling can help the Deprived Children to complete their education. Poor children generally are unable to continue their education after a certain age or do not even start their schooling due to lack of money, time or because of the fact that they start working at early age. Non-profit Organizations working at grass-root level can play a key role. They can start coaching centers, open schools in their area which will provide the education to children free of cost. This should be approved by Government. In additions, our Government has initiated many programmes like "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan". Through NGOs, these programmes can and should reach to every child irrespective of the challenges.
In this connection, I want to add one more point that is open schooling can provide other useful and knowledgeable courses i.e. like handicraft, sewing, painting etc. which will help to those children who are weak in studies but 'active' in other fields. After completing their education they can be become self-employed and live their life respectfully.
Following are my suggestions as premises for building an open-school in today's day and age. I have mention Maharashtra as I had the privilege to have been invited to a formative meeting.
- We wish to see Maharashtra pioneer a new vision of the open school, breaking new grounds and not just follow other trends in the past.
- While Open school is currently (in the way it is implemented at national level as also as it was proposed in 2006 at Maharshtra level) has been seen as 'remedial' or second line, and while there is no claim that open school could be even better than the formal school, we all agreed that we wish that the new open school that we wish to establish may even emerge better than the formal one.
- The pedagogy of open school needs rethinking as the whole lot of transactions in open school takes on a new shape, given the variety of communication media available. Subject to motivation and availability of access to IT infrastructures, (and that is not a small thing), the ideals of self paced learning can become that much more feasible.
- The online, blended (online+offline) and hybrid (online+Cd+pendrive+ST Bus+human ) modes of communication can be used given the resourcefulness and need. Fixation with only online need not delay the reach of gains of the technology to many who may be accessible only with hybrid approach.
- ICT holds the key to scaling, expansion and excellence. For fuller appreciation of this, some workshops dedicated to how affordable (read open source and non-branded) hardware/software technologies can make a difference in open-schooling.
- ICT can also be expanded as Integrating and Constructionist Technology instead of its limited expansion as information and communication technology
- Language becomes a less of an issue if all soft wares (only in some cases this may not be possible) are created with multi-linguality as base. So like a sound track in a movie, the same can be replaced by another language.
- There are many resources, software, content and practices that global community has created for sharing. Our students should get access to all that is acceptable to us. For this a team has to be built which scouts and annotates the available content. We may use the sifting done by Wisconsin University for the purpose. It is on Scout Report (see http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/). Also www.curriki.org, ( Postscript: we may add www.spoken-tutorial.org an MHRD project)
- Given that science (both natural and social) has now tools to study various phenomenon at micro and macro levels and most systems have a visible( i.e. macro) processes governed by invisible ( i.e. micro) agents, an important process of agent based modeling( ref Netlogo) should become a norm for studying phenomenon , at least wherever possible. This is not restricted to consuming the readymade models given by others but must involve PRODUCING the models for the world to see.
- ICT is a disruptive technology. Many more will come. Now the need is to absorb these disruptions and not fear them.
- Gradualness is comfortable to feel. But may not be practical always. It may even cause more inconvenience when the environment has changed around us. Thus can we really suggest using a 3.5' disk today instead of floppy drive or will we have to quickly move to DVD and pen drive, though only recent media? We know surely that that will soon be replaced by net based storage or better etc.
- Let us use a lot of goodwill that exists among the intellectuals who may wish to contribute to the better education by giving space to competing ideas ( in the form of software, learning resources content, e-books, mentoring , access points etc) with expanded choice to students to take what they wish to learn.
- Freedom is a value. Let us make that value an important asset of our students. Let us insist on Free and Open source software as far as possible as a value. If and when necessary, let us acknowledge the compromise, so that that is temporary.
I would like to offer some reflections on Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey's Response from my end:
In my view, where formal system of schooling is not ensuring quality education, as many studies have arrived at this conclusion, it is difficult to say about the quality of education in open schooling system. Why there should be different system of schooling, when right to education has been adopted in the country.
Response: Because there are many ways to ensure the right to education and non-governmental schools are good to use in this
In my view, there should be common schooling system in the country-no private schools, no schools with special status.
Response: That ensures a monopoly which never will provide good services to anyone. India has tried municipal schooling and failed greatly as we all know (
www.asercentre.org best independent source)
All the schools should follow the same norm, same facilities, same administrative and financial procedures, same fees, same books and curriculum throughout the country or state.
Response: Why? That is a violation of the right of minorities to their own education and culture. And education is a concurrent subject so centre does not hold over States and Union Territories
Private players should come under the umbrella of Government system. Governments do have a greater role to play in ensuring proper implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the education programme.
Response: But teachers in government school do not function well, they are absent but they are paid a lot more than counterparts in developing countries. There are no incentives for them to perform as the system is weighted on inputs (enrolment) rather than outputs (learning outcomes)
This will ensure inclusive education, covering entire population of the country.
Response: It has not worked since its start so why continue hoping for reforms (1968, 1986, 1992, 2001, 2009)?
Open schooling system and education through correspondence for children should not be encouraged.
Response: But some people think the opposite,
Education is the basic right of children and they must be brought under the purview of formal schooling system.
Response: Agreed, but public legislation can be brought out by non-public service providers.
We must not let the parents free for the silly excuses of denial of basic education to their children.
Response: That is an insult to all poor parents who leave the failing government system in favour of low cost budget schools. Around 30 million children study in unrecognized schools that parents prefer over free mid day meal giving governmental schools
On the one hand, we are compromising with the quality of education of masses, and on the other hand, we are expecting quality human resources for development of the country.
Response: India can start by making all schools equal in the eyes of RTE Act. As it reads today, all non-governmental schools have to re-register and be controlled for 3 yrs while all governmental schools are already recognized.
Can we expect a convent-educated fluently English speaking student and a student of government schooling system to compete at par in any competition in today's world?
Response: If the poor student was given a school voucher he/she could enter a good private school and compete yes. As the system works now, only the rich can enter private schools. Is that a system you want to keep? Do we have the figure as to how many government employees are sending their children to government schools? Not many as they are rich enough to send them to private schools of high class.
This will certainly be an eye-opener for the advocates of dual system of schooling in the country.
Response: With a free choice for parents the dual system will multiply to a diverse system funded by tax payers money for the sake of all children, not just the rich.
Suman Sachdeva has raised apposite questions regarding effectiveness of NIOS. I feel its answer rests on how one looks at "Open Schools" whether open concept schools (classrooms without walls), or schools with open enrollment, a particular shortcut to certification or schools for the marginalized. According to the proponents of Open Schooling especially in UK. "The basic theory of open education is that children learn in different ways at different times from things around them [that] interest them. Ideally, the teacher acts as a guide and resource person and encourages pupils to proceed at their own pace and develop independence of thought. The goal is to develop in children; initiative, creativity, and critical thinking" (Bader & Blackmon, 1978). In my view, this position offers space to other players' including various agencies, voluntary organizations and NIOS to play a more proactive role in UEE rather than just being spokes in certification delivery mechanism.
In this response however, I object to the response by Jan Sjunnesson Rao that voucher is that miracle pill which will cure all our educational ailments and I also feel her response is not only out of the context of discussion (the discussion being effectiveness of NIOS) but are highly biased and fallacious as well.
Before doing that let us first understand the context of this whole debate. At the heart of the debate are the forces operating to pressurize governments the world over to curtail spending on education as well as hand over the spending on education to private players through voucher system.
Let us now take a look at Jan Sjunnesson Rao (JSR) responses:
Response (JSR): There are many ways to ensure the right to education and non-governmental schools are good to use in this
Nothing can be more absurd than the notion that non-governmental schools read private schools will ensure fundamental right to good quality education of every child. The very act of admitting those students to schools who can pay fees is an act of denial of fundamental right to good quality education of all children because those who cannot afford do not get admitted to the school. Charging fee for education has another implication: on the cost(school fee) -quality curve the education keeps getting expensive.
Response (JSR): (A common schooling system) ensures a monopoly which never will provide good services to anyone. India has tried municipal schooling and failed greatly as we all know (www.asercentre.org best independent source).
Nothing can be farther from the truth that creation of voucher system will provide a stimulus for government schools to improve. In fact the voucher system if implemented will only deepen the divide between private and government schools because government schools must accept every student and are subject to bureaucracy, regulations and teachers burdened with tasks other than instructional including mid-day meal carrying out census etc, while the private schools are free to select the most promising of students and are exempt from all regulations is in itself a mockery of competition.
Wouldn't it be better to create competition within the government school system? Couldn't some of the bureaucratic restrictions and regulations be eased that have made a mess of government schools. For example, recently the Rajasthan State Government have asked the Head Masters to supervise public distribution system essential goods and commodities such as kerosene, sugar, flour for seven days a week during school hours?
Response (JSR): But teachers in government school do not function well, they are absent but they are paid a lot more than counterparts in developing countries. There are no incentives for them to perform as the system is weighted on inputs (enrolment) rather than outputs (learning outcomes)
Outcome-based reform and the issue of salary to teachers poses problems of the most fundamental nature about how we think about the organization of schooling, notion of teachers and aims of education. As far as both merit-pay efforts and programs are concerned there is little empirical evidence from countries like America that they have reliably improved student learning. By the way why shouldn't the teachers be paid as per other professional counterparts in society like doctors or say engineers is it just to under pay school teachers which most private schools do?
Response (JSR): That is an insult to all poor parents who leave the failing government system in favour of low cost budget schools. Around 30 million children study in unrecognized schools that parents prefer over free mid day meal giving governmental schools.
Again there are no empirical studies which conclusively demonstrate that the quality of education imparted in unrecognized schools or private schools is significantly superior to that being offered in government primary schools. It is again a known fact that private or so called budget schools do not have provision for in-service training or any vision of capacity building of their teachers. The teachers in such schools are themselves not even graduates and the type of pedagogical practices in such schools leave much to be desired. Further, in most of these schools learning with understanding is mistaken for rote memorization.
Response (JSR): India can start by making all schools equal in the eyes of RTE Act. As it reads today, all non-governmental schools have to re-register and be controlled for 3 yrs while all governmental schools are already recognized.
Why should the government regularize those schools which do not fulfill the basic norms for running a school? Should there be completely no norms as to the safety, hygiene of students and qualifications of teachers are concerned. It is unfortunate that such a point is being made.
Response (JSR): If the poor student was given a school voucher he/she could enter a good private school and compete yes. As the system works now, only the rich can enter private schools. Is that a system you want to keep? Do we have the figure as to how many government employees are sending their children to government schools? Not many as they are rich enough to send them to private schools of high class.
I have already mentioned that the voucher game is tilted in favor of the private schools. While the government schools cannot refuse admission whereas the private schools can pick and choose who they accept. Further as H. Bridgehouse in his article on educational vouchers (see Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1994 211) points out that there are several mechanisms by which voucher schemes are liable to produce unequal educational opportunities. In the end use of vouchers would leave government schools in even worse condition than they are now. Worse yet, we would be turning our backs on those students left within such schools. So should we turn our backs on public education or should we make the harder choice to return to the government schools and do whatever is necessary to save them. That work starts by saying "no" on vouchers. In this context efforts to make a dent this situation by organizations such as Digantar through Shiksha Samarthn Project in Phagi which is being supported by WATIS (Wipro Applying Thought as well as other such efforts by different agencies across the country are noteworthy.
Finally, full privatization would, in most circumstances, worsen social injustice in schooling.
I don't agree with the arguments and justifications given in favour of school choice programme. I think nothing should be encouraged beyond common school system and RTE at the moment. Since a welcome initiative is already in place from today, we should all join hands to support it. If at all any open school system or other courses are to be inducted let it be part of RTE Act so that it becomes a justiciable right not a voluntary option.
Since I have been a more or less regular follower of the observations raised on this forum, this particular theme reminds me of my feelings towards my school.
Coming from a so called privileged backdrop I never used to look forward to going to school for a couple of reasons which can be possibly summed up as lack of interest for the atmosphere prevalent in school. I believe quite a few classmates would retain the same memory.
On education front linking up with deprived sections needs to address the key factor - "generating interest" in those sections. In order to generate and sustain on interest among target groups it is a package of incentives that is relevant. It may range from food items to entertainment schemes as per local tastes. Education, in fact, can be an extra curricular subject of that package to actually enliven its interests! Because formal, regimented education (under whatever definition, eg., NOS) does not carry any significance to this section. We the better-off strata too find it non-palatable at times. However, our upbringing, ambience, social protocols in a way force us to toe the line of this regimentation. Our counterparts in not-so-fortunate ones do not identify with this education system which becomes evident in their association with schools - drop out rates can be one such indicator. It may be counter-questioned that due to poverty, stigma pupils tend to opt out of schools and probably not out of disinterest per se. Bottom line though remains in prioritization where a very poor child does not hesitate running away from home to attend a street play or a popular movie!
All I would like to submit is to kindly identify the factors that are of interest to them instead of what we have in our jholas to impose on them.
Is National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) meant primarily for children to enroll themselves and get enlisted in the school participant list?
While discussing the relevance and utility of an open school system, it would be essential to differentiate between the provision for children under and above 14. The Right to Education Act (referred to in the introductory remarks) is geared towards children under 14. The NOS is by definition addressed at children over 14 years of age who have been left out from the mainstream education system. As such, it offers an opportunity to children who have crossed the threshold of 14 years without enrolling in elementary school. This is the sole purpose that this would serve for children under 14. My reading of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 would be that any attempt to promote open schooling for 6-14 year olds would be illegal since it fails to provide for any of the minimum standards of infrastructure and learning that the law of the land mandates. It would also be dangerous since it would amount to condoning the scope of simultaneous continuation of child labour and schooling (by not enrolling children in full time functional schools).
For post elementary education, it likewise does succeed in ensuring access to learning opportunities in children who wish to return to the educational mainstream but are unable to do so for a range of reasons, not least of which is the prohibitive cost of schooling in an educational system where 60% of secondary schools are fees charging private schools (I would return to this issue in the end of the response- vouchers are no solution to this problem). The NOS has also been used by children with disability who find the mainstream education system hostile to them. No, not all children subsequently return to mainstream schooling, but not because the children or their parents choose to do so, but because they are excluded from secondary schooling for fundamental reasons which are not going to go away in the meantime. Let's not forget that 78 % workers in the unorganized sector live on less than Rs. 20 a day (Arjun Sengupta report).
Is NIOS able to provide QUALITY education?
Quality is not an absolute term. There is no agreement even among educationists as to what constitutes quality. The recent trend to equate quality with learning outcomes alone would, however, not be a sufficient definition. There is a lot that is achieved through enrollment in a full time school that may not directly yield an improvement in an improvement in a standardized test (or school exam). Enrollment in distance education deprives children of these other associated benefits. However, if the choice is between an inaccessible (probably fees charging private) secondary school (for children over 14)/ not being able to learn at all since the child is over 14 and has been excluded under the RTE Act/not being able to continue with an education at all and going through the NOS system, the latter would be preferable. The only permanent solution to ensuring quality learning for all the nation's citizens, however, would be through a state funded and run education system of a uniform quality.
Can the education provided through the NIOS be equated to the formal education system? Or should it be equated at all?
If one reduces education to provision of literacy, NOS may be directly equated to the formal education system. However, while post-secondary education remains so highly privatized and while the secondary and higher secondary school net remains so limited, this limited understanding may be better than nothing.
An additional purpose that open schooling serves in principle is that of continuing education. However, this is something that is usually applied to older learners (and certainly not for children in the age group covered by compulsory schooling). It would apply to those who wish to update their skills or learn new things and supplement and support the mainstream education system- not act as a replacement of it. The web link supplied by Jan Sjunnesson Rao, refers to such an application to high school level. It is, once again, however, not something related to elementary schooling.
Is NIOS being looked at an easy route to avail incentives related to enrolment and completion of schooling?
Yes, it is. However, there is no problem with this since the legal minimum age of schooling is woefully inadequate compared to the minimum requirements for obtaining employment in even semi-skilled jobs.
The answers to the above may lead to two logical conclusions. If yes then children may just as well join NIOS and not get trapped in the regimental routine and procedures of a formal school. If not, then why to continue with NIOS at all?
Whether children should be enrolled in formal schools or not, is to me a non-question. If there is a serious intent to ensure access to education to children of a country, this has to be through formal schooling. The lesson of history has been that these would have to be government schools. However, even if one sets aside the question of ownership and management (to which I would return later), there is no replacement for formal schooling as defined as schools with a set curriculum, with minimum standards of infrastructure, trained teachers and with strong management systems. One may disagree over the specific nature of each, however, I am sure most educationists would agree that these would be basic minimum necessities for an education system in any developed (or developing) country to have in the 21st Century. Non formal education has by and large failed to deliver learning of an acceptable quality and has certainly permitted in the continued prevalence of child labour (the learning attained in a few hours learning in the evening after a full day's worth of child labour cannot begin to compare to a full day's schooling where the learner is freed from the stresses and burdens of having to earn a living). NGO interventions for education in non formal mode have (with a few exceptions) also failed to ensure quality learning despite the best of intentions (and if one looks at the majority of interventions, most NGO non formal interventions tend to focus on level equivalents of Classes 1-3) and have further contributed to the government's tendency to adopt low cost- low quality initiatives (like the Education Guarantee Scheme in the context of Elementary Education).
What NOS does manage to deliver is
- Relatively low cost schooling for children over 14 yrs of age- the age for which the provision of state funded schooling is extremely poor.
- Permits child labourers older than 14 yrs of age and who have been outside the educational mainstream for a long time to gain educational certificates and return to the mainstream and/or gain the degrees necessary for applying for employment at a later age.
- Education for children with developmental delay, mental retardation, learning disability and other disabilities (where there is no scope of obtaining access to mainstream schools for a whole host of reasons.
Returning to the question of ownership of provision, and in the context of the post by Jan Sjunnesson Rao proposing voucher system as an option, I would reiterate that it is the role of the State to provide (and not just regulate) formal schools. In the countries where voucher systems can be said to have worked (and many researchers disagree if they actually achieved equity with quality anywhere- thus, if one looks at the US experience the United States Government Accountability office (GAO) found "little or no difference in voucher and public students' performance" and "whether the racial composition changed as a result of voucher program is unclear".), this has been in countries that have already universalized their schooling and where the State plays a strong regulatory role (eg. Sweden). Thus, in Sweden all voucher schools must meet certain quality standards, have ALL admission take place purely on first come first served basis and are not allowed to charge tuition fees. However, the private sector in India has been strongly opposed to any form of regulation- including SC orders to adhere to the Ganguli Committee recommendations for nursery admissions and limit school fees. At the same time, unrecognized schools (offered as an example of a successful free market in operation) exist principally because they flout government regulations. Furthermore, Private schools remain a minority of all the school institutions- 80% of all elementary schools are government schools and by some estimates, the current total capacity of the private unaided school sector to provide elementary education is limited to 4crore children out of 20 crore children in the age group 6-14 (Anil Sadgopal, based on Seventh All India School Survey, NCERT, 2003). The voucher system would also amount to subsidization of the private schools. This money needs to be found either through levying additional taxes (or finding new revenue some other way). Seeing that this is not likely to be accepted by voucher advocates who are of neoliberal orientation, this would mean shifting funds from existing government heads into the subsidy. This means that government funding for mainstream government schools goes down since the existing resource pie is divided between government and private schools. This reduction in funding would in turn mean deterioration of the government system (which is solely dependent on government funds and reaches out to the poorest sections of society in a system where private schools are far from having the capacity to cover all children) as resources are transferred to private schools (who have alternative funding through fees). As stated by Rajesh Sharma, there is no credible research to suppose that the quality of education imparted in government schools is lower than in private schools (if one controls for the socio-economic background of students- richer, higher caste usually male children attend private schools who bring in a certain degree of social capital into the schooling process). Even if one set aside this lack of sophistical research and accepted for argument's sake that private schools are currently producing higher learning levels, this still raises the question as to whether this is because of the private ownership of the same per se, or because of them adopting certain practices that would yield success in any setting- government or private. A detailed description of the relative pros and cons of a voucher system is beyond the scope of the query, however, every experience shows that a voucher system would not work in countries with a semi-feudal social structure, where the universal norm that every child has to be educated has not yet been established, or where the regulation of the State is weak.
Thanks Suman for raising this issue. I'm sure that Butterflies believes that NIOS has been able to provide the deprived and disadvantaged children with an opening to choose and select or even reject for that matter the kind of education which they want and do not get to a great extent.
Personally, I feel that the Open school system is at least flexible to an extent where customers can choose what they want, if they are interested to get something in writing (pass certificate/degree) which fetches them the possibility to get a better opportunity. Especially if they has missed the bus! I do agree with other members' who have advocated for a system that is universal and inclusive, but why deprive thousands of children/students' who are standing towards the end of the Queue.
Before we question the quality of education in NIOS, we would have to define 'quality' and define it from the perspective of the 'users'. Do children find this system useful? Have we asked them? Do they prefer the open system or the mainstream system which is far more stringent? For example, children who have repeatedly failed to get appropriate grades to pass, have preferred to go through the open system of schooling because it is flexible and probably easier. What does a mainstream education system anyways provides us? How many of us have gone to mainstream schools ourselves? It is not about the purchasing power only, it is about the lack of faith in mainstream education and the options made available that we have diverted towards alternatives.
Every movement starts with creating a possibility and then working towards improving its quality. Let us do the same with NIOS too, if we are questioning it. And before we do all this, let us ask children/users how they would want it to change and whether it has benefited them or not. Some of our questions might be answered through them. Let children be part of this discourse!
What is wrong with a voluntary option? In-fact it is only voluntary efforts and action that has kept hopes alive in some of the remotest areas and among most underprivileged communities where SSA too is a gross failure. The greatest malady of our education system is to look at it from an administration point of view, seldom from an educational perspective. Right to Education offers government a chance to rectify its mistakes and attenuate non delivery of quality education since independence. This does not mean that suddenly, one gets a right to strike down all good alternatives and voluntary efforts of engaging with children to ensure a quality life for them. RTE is welcome provided it also appreciates the rights of other alternatives to exist. The recent euphoria and listening to some of the champions of this Act at a recent seminar, my greatest fear is that this Act would be used as a weapon by those systems, in particular, states hostile to certain communities getting the basic privilege of education. For decades, they have systematically denied any education. It is only voluntary action that made schooling and education possible in these conflict zones. These very same states and centers of power could now cite some of the interpretations of the Act and strike down whatever little is being done by way of constructive work by NGOs and community groups. A centralized act that does not consider specific and local contexts restricts harshly the space for democratic imagination.
- It is not clear to me why NIOS is being clubbed with the right to education for children aged 6-14 years. Whereas NIOS is an option given by the government for pursuing the secondary or senior secondary education. To take a hard - line and say "nothing should be encouraged beyond common school system and RTE at the moment" is a step back in progress that we cannot afford.
- NIOS starts at 14+years as Open Basic Education (OBE) and goes on to offer secondary and senior secondary schooling alternatives with ( and I think this is the strongest point of NIOS) Vocational Training options and Life enrichment programs. Content-wise NIOS is at par with the CBSE syllabus. The only advantages that a student gets are - more subject options; more attempts; individual pace of preparation and choice of learning methodology.
- I think by opening our minds as a society, we have to encourage alternatives at the secondary education level and include vocational training, wherein it can become more interesting for the student and therefore self-motivating as an activity.
- Theoretically, all major pedagogical streams do agree that this is typically an age when along with basic education the child is ready for "internship" or preparation for a vocation. So is it going to harm the educational level of our country if we collect a certificate along the way while learning vocational skills hands-on? In our country the pressure to start working is a reality for a large percentage of children after 14-15years (if not earlier). By giving the NIOS option we can ensure not just quality education, but functional education.
- The reason a majority of us did not take to education was because it was never functional for us. NIOS is one very positive option for encouraging functional education for the students, who developmentally are supposed to be at a stage where they can make decisions regarding their vocations. At this stage, there can never be too many options in life or career.
- The usefulness of NIOS has been felt not just for the disadvantaged or those with special needs, but it can easily be an option for the unusually and extremely talented also. Eg. The talented sportsperson, or creative person, can follow his/her talents and need not get "Average-ised" by a regimented school enrollment that demands a certain percentage of attendance to even appear for an exam.
- It is also a very viable option for the overage school drop-out, for whom RTE is not a help.
- NIOS does not require any enrolment into any school for the student to write the exam. So far centers were required to register students for NIOS and provide 15-30 contact programs for the students. The assumption of NIOS is that those who can will study on their own, with help from registered Contact Centers. BTW the registration is going to go online from next year.
- Some NGOs like the Spastics Society of Karnataka (SSK), Bangalore have successfully run NIOS programs for special needs as well as non-special needs students for the past 10 years. SSK is a Special Accredited Institution for the Education of the Disadvantaged (SAIED). Other than registering the students for NIOS exam, they are an Exam Center; they are also a contact center and run alongside a day-coaching center for NIOS curriculum for those who request it/ require it. This year has seen a registration of 185 students out of which 20 are special needs students- cerebral palsy, learning disability etc.
- In conclusion, NIOS is a very good and viable, functional alternative for secondary and Sr. Secondary school. It need not be perceived as an "easy" alternative or as an alternative for the "disadvantaged" only. It's contents are at par with the CBSE syllabus. It is being offered by an authorized body (in fact the MHRD) of the Government of India I think it should be taken advantage of. In fact what happens at the ground level depends very much on NGO activity and these can be used to ensure Quality deliverance.
I think Butterflies should go for it.
It is nice reading Ms. Gayatri Kiran's kudos to NIOS. My self fulfilling prophecy as former Chairperson, she is right. NIOS is neither juts for the disadvantaged nor for the weak students. It is a quality option with flexibility that is so very necessary in the new dynamic environment in education and the society.
During my tenure, we allowed and encouraged students to choose vocational and academic subjects as combinations while advising their choice for future choices in conventional higher education. If I remember correctly, choices of vocational subjects went up from 6 to 25%.
NIOS has the credit transfer facility with Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Hence, her argument of equality between CBSE and NIOS.
Finally, why only look at NIOS? Why not the state open universities? For example, with lot of efforts, we set up Karnataka State Open School inaugurated by the then Chief Minister. For, the state open schools provide the advantage of offering courses through regional languages, example Kanada.
Technology For the people is a Non profit which is located in the old city of Hyderabad enabling out of school girls finish their 10th standard through the NIOS system and providing them livelihood options with IT skill enhancements. (www.tftpeople.org) Based on the experience of interacting with the NIOS system please find our feedback to the points raised.
Is NIOS meant primarily for children to enroll themselves and get enlisted in the school participant list?
NIOS enables those children who fall between the cracks of the formal system to have access to education and pursue further studies. It is especially important to those young people who out of economic necessity are forced to stay away from regular school. As a distance education program it plays a critical role in providing access to those you are outside the net of the formal system. It is a compliment and an alternative to formal education.
Is NIOS able to provide QUALITY education?
Quality education is a complex term especially in the Indian context but if it means in comparison to formal schools such as the government schools then I would say yes. However, there is a lot of scope for improvement in terms of course delivery and curriculum updation which even the formal schools need. The advantage that NIOS has is that through ICTs it can deliver customized learning to different groups such as tribal and other communities who have their own aural history and culture, which needs to be preserved and celebrated.
Can the education provided through the NIOS be equated to the formal education system? Or should it be equated at all?
Both systems are about educating the young learner and both have a niche area to perform in. As long as the student is able to engage and use what is best for him or her it should not matter which stream is selected. In fact, I do believe that the NIOS has not got the due recognition it deserves. It has changed the lives of many young people by giving them a chance to learn at their own pace. This is something which formal schools fail at.
There are quite a few study centers in Bangalore which are into alternative learning and use the NIOS curriculum. Many new age parents have found the NIOS better than the formal rote system where the obsession with the 95+ percentage drives students to become slaves to mugging and removes all creative thinking.
Is NIOS being looked at an easy route to avail incentives related to enrolment and completion of schooling?
The NIOS is not as easy as people seem to think. It requires the student to do a lot of study on their own and this in itself creates a better learner.
No doubt The NIOS needs a lot of improvement in the selection of the certified centres. NGOs which take up NIOS need to re-train their teachers to think differently in teaching and interacting with children who have opted out of the stifling formal system. The NIOS needs to update its ICT reach innovatively and revamp how it engages with the distance learner.
There is great potential for NIOS as a distance and non formal learning stream and if it is seamlessly linked with higher distance learning institution such as the IGNOU then it will probably become a more "respected" system.
It is urban elitist thinking which looks down upon the distance education system as inferior. I have known many young people who have done the NIOS and have topped in entrance tests to colleges. The dialogue of formal schools being better than distance education is a meaningless one. One only needs to look at the state of Government schools and the facilities they offer that makes young girls drop out. Both systems need a revamp, no doubt, but the government schools really need to do a lot more to be able to delivery quality education. The NIOS need only a little tweaking and innovative up-gradation of its engagement and innovative use ICTs for reaching out which will greatly enhance the service it provides to hundreds of children who are left out or are not cutout for formal schools.
Many thanks to all who contributed to this query!
If you have further information to share on this topic, please send it to Solution Exchange for the Education Community in India at se-ed@solutionexchange-un.net.in with the subject heading "Re: [se-ed] Query: National Institute of Open Schooling as a Qualitative Option for Education of Deprived Children
-Discussion. Additional Reply."
Disclaimer: In posting messages or incorporating these messages into synthesized responses, the UN accepts no responsibility for their veracity or authenticity. Members intending to use or transmit the information contained in these messages should be aware that they are relying on their own judgment.
| Copyrighted under Creative Commons License "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5". Re-users of this material must cite as their source Solution Exchange as well as the item's recommender, if relevant, and must share any derivative work with the Solution Exchange Community.
|
|
|
