Blogs >> Education & Books >>
Language policy in education
Ever since Kapil Sibbal's proposal to scrap class X board exams got
reported parents of children in the relevant age group have been
keeping their eyes peeled for more news on the topic. It has sparked
many a discussion on many areas in education that have caused grief to
parents and students alike. The language policy in state syllabus
schools is one such.
The ongoing tussle between the state government and unaided schools about the medium of instruction has been shamefully ignoring the actually impacted section - the students. The politicians - who themselves can not boast of much education arbitrarily decide on the policies depending upon how close elections are and how they can influence the larger section of the populace which spends their life resenting the financially better placed minority.
As is happening in other states like too - Maharashtra for example - increasingly the wealth and prosperity in the state seems to be shifting to what the natives look on as immigrant population. To define 'immigrant' in this scenario - all those who are not natives of the state with respect to language - i.e. non-Marathi-speaking in Maharashtra and non-Kannadigas in Karnataka. That this is happening is in no doubt. That the native population has the right to expect at least similar progress is also indubitable.
When such disparity arises within the population there are often innumerable factors responsible for the trend. In relation to the situation in Karnataka, one of the main reasons is the language policy.
There is no doubt that the higher paid jobs go to those who can communicate in English. In terms of higher upward mobility too the English speaking section seems to have an edge. Though intelligence and capability are in no way affected by the language one speaks in, it does effect the impression on the audience. Today's world has grown so small that one can find people from not just all parts of the country working in close proximity but also several from other parts of the world. Language, in this context becomes even more of significance than ever before. When you put a Kannadiga, a Malayalee, an Assamese, a Bengali and a non-Indian together, the only way to ensure smooth operations is to communicate in a common language - and that is just stating the obvious.
What then, is the logic behind fighting education in English? Is it not then, equivalent to, deliberately holding back those sections of the populace forced to go to government aided schools from pursuing the path to prosperity? Is such a ruling not like deliberately distancing the 'native' citizen from the forward moving masses?
The simple question these rule makers need to answer is this - what is more important - prosperity of the citizens under their care or sticking to the state language policy?
Another very simple question they need to address is whether a state language needs to be the medium of instruction in the first place? A state language as medium of instruction presupposes that all students enrolling in the school have the same language as their mother tongue. Karnataka has three major mother tongues. So the argument that starting education in the mother tongue eases learning holds no credibility.
A third simple question - why are parents still eager to send their children to those English medium schools which are under fire - isn't it because they can see in which direction better prosperity lies? If our democracy is 'for' the people then why is it that our lawmakers go blatantly 'against' the wishes of the people towards something that would be detrimental for their progress in the long run?
The ongoing tussle between the state government and unaided schools about the medium of instruction has been shamefully ignoring the actually impacted section - the students. The politicians - who themselves can not boast of much education arbitrarily decide on the policies depending upon how close elections are and how they can influence the larger section of the populace which spends their life resenting the financially better placed minority.
As is happening in other states like too - Maharashtra for example - increasingly the wealth and prosperity in the state seems to be shifting to what the natives look on as immigrant population. To define 'immigrant' in this scenario - all those who are not natives of the state with respect to language - i.e. non-Marathi-speaking in Maharashtra and non-Kannadigas in Karnataka. That this is happening is in no doubt. That the native population has the right to expect at least similar progress is also indubitable.
When such disparity arises within the population there are often innumerable factors responsible for the trend. In relation to the situation in Karnataka, one of the main reasons is the language policy.
There is no doubt that the higher paid jobs go to those who can communicate in English. In terms of higher upward mobility too the English speaking section seems to have an edge. Though intelligence and capability are in no way affected by the language one speaks in, it does effect the impression on the audience. Today's world has grown so small that one can find people from not just all parts of the country working in close proximity but also several from other parts of the world. Language, in this context becomes even more of significance than ever before. When you put a Kannadiga, a Malayalee, an Assamese, a Bengali and a non-Indian together, the only way to ensure smooth operations is to communicate in a common language - and that is just stating the obvious.
What then, is the logic behind fighting education in English? Is it not then, equivalent to, deliberately holding back those sections of the populace forced to go to government aided schools from pursuing the path to prosperity? Is such a ruling not like deliberately distancing the 'native' citizen from the forward moving masses?
The simple question these rule makers need to answer is this - what is more important - prosperity of the citizens under their care or sticking to the state language policy?
Another very simple question they need to address is whether a state language needs to be the medium of instruction in the first place? A state language as medium of instruction presupposes that all students enrolling in the school have the same language as their mother tongue. Karnataka has three major mother tongues. So the argument that starting education in the mother tongue eases learning holds no credibility.
A third simple question - why are parents still eager to send their children to those English medium schools which are under fire - isn't it because they can see in which direction better prosperity lies? If our democracy is 'for' the people then why is it that our lawmakers go blatantly 'against' the wishes of the people towards something that would be detrimental for their progress in the long run?
|
|
