Centring “classroom life” in India’s debate on quality of education
India is a continent-like country, with country-sized constituent provinces, and hence is, not unexpectedly, internally differentiated when measured in terms of the dominant educational imagination, educational programmes and policies, and the nature of democratic politics itself, which either opens...
Đã lưu trong:
| Xuất bản năm: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/ries, |
|---|---|
| Tác giả chính: | |
| Định dạng: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Ngôn ngữ: | Anglais |
| Được phát hành: |
Revue internationale d'éducation de Sèvres
2022
|
| Những chủ đề: | |
| Truy cập trực tuyến: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Tóm tắt: | India is a continent-like country, with country-sized constituent provinces, and hence is, not unexpectedly, internally differentiated when measured in terms of the dominant educational imagination, educational programmes and policies, and the nature of democratic politics itself, which either opens up or closes down educational opportunity for the masses. What enables the relatively disadvantaged social groups to step into the classroom and continue their school life in some parts of India but disable them from doing so elsewhere is a matter of great import, as it invites us to make use of a comparative lens in order to “learn from India by India”, and to be both critical and constructive in our research and action for universal schooling of quality. This paper has the inherent limitation of not covering the vast and diverse educational landscape of India, trying instead to shed light on only a few corners of this huge canvas, grounding the discussion mainly on preschool and elementary education in the Indian state of West Bengal.The paper addresses the central question of the quality of “classroom life” in its everyday form in government-run schools, against the general backdrop of widespread cynicism with anything public, which is noticeable in recent times in both India and many other parts of the globe. The analyses and arguments advanced here in defence of public education and the larger ethos of democratic education seek to counter this view, without in any way dismissing the role of private alternatives. This reasoning in favour of democratic and inclusive education is, however, not a mere assertion about the inevitable progress of public institutions, but rather an attempt to translate our “constructive impatience” – to borrow the pithy term used by Amartya Sen – with the serious inadequacies of the public education system into effective and egalitarian remedial action. |
|---|