XIII. REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ADULT EDUCATION
The six major issues and principles of Adult Education and Continuing Education set-forth in Chapter 10 of the CABE Committee on Policy have been demonstrated and affirmed by the Total Literacy Programmes (TLC) They are:-
(a) Following what UNESCO calls the "double track approach" which is use of literacy and basic learning for adults and universal elementary education for children, which includes various forms of Non-formal education, the need for using both the 'programmes is affirmed. Both are needed and should be pursued simultaneously. Their mutual inter-relationship is demonstrated in the total literacy campaign districts where parents, who were earlier not interested in sending their children to primary schools, are now demanding the opening of such schools, to cover also the education of drop- outs and left-outs through an integrated system of non-formal education.
(b) Adult literacy is inseparable from Adult Education. Any such separation weakens both and makes either unrealistic. Again the TLC experience shows that literacy is an entry point to the real world of the adult in regard to the problems of health, housing, nutrition and planning of the home. Thus the total literacy campaigns and integration of adult literacy
249
with adult education enables the adult to enter developmental programmes and to maintain and attain literacy at sustainable levels.
(c) The illiteracy problem facing the country, of nearly 48% illiterates, is massive. But the, total literacy campaign approach and experience show that it can be broken down into smaller and manageable units, so that the whole adult literacy programme can be dealt within the 8th Plan. This means that this mass problem can be solved and the TLC methodology makes possible our entry into the 9th Plan with a literacy rate of 70 to 75 per cent for which a systematic action for environment building and mass mobilisation through BGVS Phase-II and other appropriate organisations will be needed.
(d) Further TLC experience in evaluation both formative which is starting evaluation from the start of the programme, and summative which is evaluation in stages, demonstrates the importance of keeping the programme under constant evaluation so that, as the TLC shows, mid-course corrections can be made, where necessary, and the programme kept on a sound basis. To avoid the kind of problem referred to by some States unsuitability of materials, the materials should be cleared by an Advisory Committee headed by the Education Secretary of the State. With regard to personnel, they can be mobilised from among students in
250
universities, colleges & schools, members of NSS, NCC, NYKS and reputed voluntary agencies committed to the cause.
(e) It is important that in the total literacy programme there should be a certain degree of simultaneously between the first stage of literacy learning and the post-literacy programmes. In particular, there should be no gap between the two in order to avoid the reversion of the neo-literate into illiteracy. In practical terms, this would mean that the first text of the post-literacy programme (PL-I) should be introduced to the learner when the third text of the literacy programme (IPCL-III) is being used. This also means that the timing of the preparation of PL-I in relation to IPCL-III becomes crucial. This would also be one means of integrating TLC, JSN or other forms of postliteracy & continuing education.
(f) Finally, the TLC programme which arose from our experience in Ernakulam and has been extended to all 14 districts of Kerala, resulting in that State being declared the first 100% literate State has been followed with variations and adaptations by Pondicherry, Goa and 88 projects in 139 districts of 17 States and UTs as a pointer to the literacy effort. Thus, the TLC programme being successfully followed in these areas with their varying levels of education and socioeconomic achievement is an affirmation of the
251
universal applicability of the total literacy campaign approach, which is common to all States and all Districts in the States/UTs. This means that the goal of entering the 9th Plan with a rate of literacy of 70 to 75 per cent is an important and achievable goal. This would also involve a certain degree of decentralisation of the programme and its implementation. In the light of the above principles and issues, the revisions proposed to revise paragraphs 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 and the new para 4.14 of the National Policy on Education, 1986 set forth in the document captioned "Revised Policy Formulations" (draft) which were discussed, reviewed and examined are recommended for adoption.
The place and timings of the Group meetings and its membership are set-forth in the attached annexure.
252
ANNEXURE The Group of Adult & Continuing Education met in Vigyan Bhawan, Committee Room 'B' on 5th May, 1992 at 4.00 PM and on 6th May, 1992 at 10.00 AM and discussed and adopted the report. The members of the Group are :-
1. Dr. Malcolm S. Adiseshiah Chairman
2. Shri J.R. Ramanathan Rapporteur
Education Secretary,
Tamil Nadu.
3. Shri Anil Bordia Member
Education Secretary,
Government of India.
4. Shri L. Mishra Joint Rapporteur
Joint Secretary (AE) &
Director-General (NLM),
Department of Education,
Government of India.
5. Shri Tulsi Singh Member
Minister of Higher, Adult &
Non-Formal Education,
Government of Bihar.
6. Shri K.G. Bijawat Member
Director, SIERT,
Government of Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
7. Ms. S. Sridevi Member
National Youth Awardee,
12-100336/2/3,
Secunderabad.
8. Mrs. M.V. Garde, Member
Principal Secretary (Higher Education),
Government of Madhya Pradesh.
9. Shri A. J. Shukla Member
Director of Adult Education,
Government of Gujarat.
10. Shri Karnail Singh Member
Principal Secretary (Education),
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
253
11. Dr. K.A. Pandey Member
Director of Adult Education,
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
12. Shri Shardindu Member
Joint Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
13. Shri P. Mathew Samuel Member
Director of Education,
Pondicherry.
14. Dr. M.P. Parameswaran Member
Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad,
Trivandrum.
15. Smt. Snehlata Kulshresta Member
Joint Director (Non-formal Education),
Government of Rajasthan.
16. Shri H.R.Borah Member
Additional Director of School Education,
Government of Nagaland.
17. Shri A.K.Basu Member
Director (Adult Education),
Department of Education,
Government of India.
18. Shri P.K. Tripathi Member
Director (Adult Education),
Department of Education,
Government of India.
19. Smt. Anita Kaul Member
Deputy Secretary (AE),
Department of Education,
Government of india.
20. Shri P.V. Salelkar Member
Director of Education,
Government of Goa.
21. Shri K.P. Sonawane Member
Director of Adult Education,
Government of Maharashtra.
22. Dr. N.K.Patole Member
Director of Higher Education,
Government of Maharashtra.
23. Dr. Sudhir Ray Member
Member of Paliament.
254
24. Shri Sriniwas Joshi Member
Director of Adult Education,
Government of Himachal Pradesh.
25. Shri H.P. Pandey Member
Director, SCERT, Punjab,
Government of Himachal Pradesh.
26. Shri P.S. Bhupall Member
Director, SCERT, Punjab,
Chandigarh.
27. Shri R. Theivamani Member
Director of Adult Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu.s
255