CHENNAI: The three-language formula was not the only bone of contention in the National Education Policy. Now, the proposal to introduce vocational education from Class-VI has become the focus of debates. While educationists seem divided on the topic, the popular opinion seems to be that, the concept may be beneficial for urban middle-class students but problematic for those coming from rural and low-income groups.
The policy proposes practice-based training for students from Class-VI onwards, for 10 days a year without carrying their bags. On the no-bag days, the students will intern with experts in carpentry, gardening and pottery among others. The internship will be in collaboration with private companies, development institutes and non-profit organizations.
It does not fix a time period till when students would be exposed to vocational education. Over the next decade, vocational training would be completely integrated with mainstream education, indicates the policy note. Will this idea create independent individuals equipped with a certain skill-set, or will it result in the creation of more labourers than graduates? is the question in the minds of academicians.
Though the argument that a paltry 10 days will make no big difference in the big picture does hold good, for educationists in Tamil Nadu, the idea is reminiscent of a similar move made 67 years ago, when C Rajagopalachari was the Chief Minister.
The Madras Scheme of Elementary Education, introduced in the Madras Presidency in 1953, wanted to merge family occupation with school education. Teaching hours were reduced from five to three. Students spent their mornings in school and went home in the second session to learn their parents’ occupation. The scheme was met with stiff opposition from social reformers such as Periyar E V Ramasamy, and DMK founder CN Annadurai, for its casteist nature.
Within a year, the scheme was rolled back. The issue culminated with Rajaji resigning from the post of the Chief Minister. “Now, this proposal in the NEP is no less than that scheme of Rajaji,” claims retired professor A Marx. “What is the necessity of introducing vocational training at the age of 11?” Noting that every student should be given mainstream education until the age of 17, Marx says students from economically weaker sections will get distracted because of skills they acquire at school and will not fight against their shortcomings as they are doing now.
“Three years ago, provisions of Child Labour Act 1986 that prohibited employment of children below the age of 14 were diluted. Now children are allowed to work in family occupations and many other hazardous industries. Then, the Central government launched Skill India initiative with National Skill Development Framework (NSDF) to assess the skills.
The Centre’s NEP is aimed at creating more labourers and small traders than graduates,” claims Marx.
However, writer and publisher Badri Seshadri differs in his opinions. “Engineering graduates from the State have no skills to build anything. Be they manufacturing or services sectors, building, experiment and estimation are essential.
Nobody outside the State has any problem with this.” Pointing out that many high-end schools, where students from affluent backgrounds are studying, have made woodwork as part of the extracurricular activities, Badri says children are made to learn vocational courses in an environment without caste identities.
He wondered about critics who question the necessity of introducing vocational training at the age of 11. “For the same reasons we study maths or science, it’s necessary to learn additional skills,” However, Seshadri remained sceptical on its implementation in the State owing to political reasons. BJP State unit spokesperson Narayanan Thirupathy says imparting skills at school level will make every student an ‘independent’ with certain skills.