NEW PATTERN OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
 

Prof S.Nurul Hasan

The adoption of the common pattern of 10+2+3 for school and college classes has been an important reform whose implementation has long been overdue. The reform was first recommended, about 55 years ago, by the Calcutta University Commission (1917-19). At that time, the Matriculation Examination, which marked the end of the school course and also constituted an entrance examination to the universities, was held in different provinces at the end of 10-12 years of schooling. But in spite of this large variation of the duration of the school stage, these examinations, though conducted by different agencies, were regarded as equivalent to each other in all parts of the country. The Matriculation Examination was followed by a two-year intermediate course at the end of which another public examination, the Intermediate Examination was held. Then came a two-year period of undergraduate education after which the First Degree Examination was held. All these three examinations-Matriculation, Intermediate and First Degree-were held by the universities. The Commission examined in depth the content of education at the intermediate and the undergraduate stages and came to the following conclusions:

(1) That the intermediate stage was really a part of the school course and that the students at this stage could be more effectively taught by school methods than by those which were appropriate at the university stage; and

(2) That the standard of undergraduate education was so poor that the first degree in India was not really comparable to the first degree in the advanced countries.

The Commission, therefore, recommended that:

(1) The dividing line between the university and the secondary courses is more appropriately drawn at the Intermediate Examination than at the Matriculation;

(2) That the duration of undergraduate course for the First Degree should be increased to three years. and that

5

(3) A Board of Secondary and intermediate Education should be established for the purpose of reorganising high school and intermediate education on the lines recommended by it and for holding the matriculation and Intermediate Examinations. The universities would thus be left to their proper sphere, namely, the provision of under-graduate and post-graduate education and the holding of examinations for the first, second or research degrees.

This recommendation made a great impression on Indian educational thought and, for a time, it appeared to be on the verge of universal acceptance. But ultimately it was implemented only in one province, namely, the U.P. and that too, in a mutilated form. No steps were taken to increase the duration of the first degree course to three years; not were any effective steps taken to vocationalize the intermediate stage.

The University Education Commission (1948-49) under the Chairmanship of Radhakrishnan had, therefore, to take up the discussion of the problem once again. After examining the problem from all points of view, this Commission also came to the conclusion that it was necessary to adopt the uniform pattern of 10+2+3 for school and college classes. The Commission felt that this pattern would make it possible to vocationalize the secondary stage of education so as to divert students into different walks of life at the end of secondary school and thus reduce pressures on university admissions. It also felt that the lengthening of the undergraduate course to three years, preceded by an intensive preparation at the earlier stage of two years, would result in a considerable improvement of standards in higher education. Unfortunately, steps were not taken to implement these recommendations.

The problem came up for consideration once again when the Secondary Education Commission under the chairmanship of Dr. A. L. Mudaliar submitted its report (1952). The stage was now ripe to re- organise school and university education together, on the lines recommended by the University Education Commission and the Secondary Education Commission and to adopt

6

a common pattern for school and college classes. At this time, throughout India, the duration of the post-Matriculation course leading to the first degree was uniformly four years and it was uniformly divided into two stages - two years of Intermediate and two years of undergraduate education. The simplest reform would, therefore, have been to add one year to the degree course and to transfer the two years of the Intermediate course to the school stage. But for various reasons, and mainly for financial considerations, this was not done. Instead the recommendation of the Sargent Report of an eleven-year higher secondary school followed by a three-year course for first degree was revived and the pattern of 8+3+3 was adopted. The Intermediate course was therefore broken up into two parts and the first year was either added to the school stage or converted into a pre-university course of one year and the second year was added to the two-year undergraduate course for the first degree to create the three-year degree course. This was an unfortunate decision dictated by the compulsion of economy rather than the logic of academic reform.

The entire position was reviewed once again by the Education Commission (1964-66). It found that, as a result of the decisions taken after the Report of the Secondary Education Commission, there were at least four different patterns of schools and colleges in the country which may be stated as follows:

(1) Kerala was the only State where the pattern of 10+2+3 had been adopted, with the two-year stage being located in junior colleges;

(2) The pattern of 10+2+2 prevailed only in Uttar Pradesh where a ten-year school was followed by a two- year intermediate course and a two-year course for first degree;

(3) The pattern of 11+3 prevailed in the Delhi Union Territory and the State of Madhya Pradesh where an eleven year higher secondary school was followed by a three year course for the first degree; and

(4) The pattern of 10 (or 11 or even 12 in some cases) + 1+ 3 was followed in the other States where a school stage of 10 to 12 years was followed by a year of pre- university

7

course and a three-year course for the first degree (alternatively, the pre-university year was often added to secondary schools which were then designated as "higher secondary").

The Commission examined this situation from all points of view and came to the conclusion that, on sound academic considerations detailed in its report, it would be highly desirable to adopt the uniform pattern of 10+2+3 for school and college classes in all parts of the country. The Commission was also definitely of the view that the school stage should consist of 12 years (10+2) and that every effort should be made to vocationalize the higher secondary stage so that, ultimately, 50% of the enrolments at this stage would be in the vocational courses. The Commission also recommended a detailed programme for bringing about these important changes. 1

These proposals of the Education Commission have found general support in the country. Even before the Report of the Commission was submitted, the National Integration Committee appointed by the Ministry of Education under the chairmanship of the late Dr. Sampurnanand recommended that, from the point of view of national integration, the uniform pattern of 10+2+3 should be adopted for school and college classes in all parts of the country. This recommendation was also supported by the Committee of Educationists and student leaders appointed under the directive of the National Integration Committee and also by several conferences of students organizations. The Central Advisory Board of Education has also unanimously supported the proposal and expressed the view that it should be implemented on a priority basis and that, at any rate, the programme should be completed in all parts of the country by the end of the Fifth Five Year Plan. The Resolution of the Government of India on the National Policy of Education also supports the uniform adoption of this pattern.

The pattern has since been introduced in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Steps have been initiated to introduce the pattern in the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and West Bengal. Several other States have set up committees to

8

examine the issue and it is hoped that they will also follow suit in the near future.

Basic Academic Considerations

While due weight must be attached to this series of weighty recommendations of important Commissions and Committees and the steps already taken to implement them, it is also necessary to examine these proposals on academic grounds and to satisfy ourselves that they are in the best interests of the country. This is what I shall now proceed to do.

The first point to be decided, on academic grounds, is the stage or age at which a student should be deemed to be fit to enter the university system. In all the advanced countries of the world, a student entering the universities is expected to be 18 years of age or more. It is only then that he can be adequately prepared for entering upon a course of higher education and also be mature enough to study on his own and to profit by, the methods of teaching which are appropriate to the university stage. This necessarily implies a total duration of at least 12 years for the school stage (including elementary and secondary education), because the age of admission to the school system is generally six years. At present, when the total duration of the school stage is sometimes only 10 or 11 years, and the age of admission to the school system is five years or even less, very young students aged 14-17, often enter the university system. They are really children who deserve to remain at school and continue to be taught by methods appropriate to the school stage rather than young persons who are mature enough to profit by a course of higher education. This is bad for the schools that lose in their stature by a cut in their total duration. It is bad for the universities because it adversely affects their standards. What is even more important, it is not good for the students themselves. If this situation is to be improved, it follows that the total duration of the school stage (including elementary and secondary education) should be not less than twelve years. This was the recommendation of the Education Commission and I am sure it will find general support in this gathering.

The next question to be discussed refers to the duration of the secondary education course. The duration of elementary educa-

9

tion is eight years in some States such as Uttar Pradesh, and seven years in others such as Maharashtra. If the total duration of school stage is to be twelve years, it follows that the duration of the secondary course would be four years in some States and five years in others. The Education Commission had an open mind on this issue and did not insist on a uniform pattern of seven or eight years for elementary education. It was, however, very emphatic on one point: secondary education should not form an integrated continuous course, but should preferably be broken up into two sub-stages: the lower secondary and the higher secondary. It further recommended that the elementary and lower secondary stage should cover the first ten years of school and that the higher secondary stage should cover the last two years. It is necessary to understand the reasons which led the Education Commission to make these recommendations.

The Education Commission found that whenever the course of secondary education is made continuous and unbroken, as in the higher secondary schools of Delhi or Madhya Pradesh, two undesirable consequences follow. The first is that the expansion of secondary education is much larger than necessary or desirable. This is because the principle of selective admissions cannot be introduced at the beginning of the stage (Class IX) when the students are too young and because every student who enters the stage has to continue till the very end because of the continuous character of the course. Such a system therefore prevents the students from leaving the school at the end of Class X, although they would be eligible for admission to many vocational courses at this point. Secondly, the continuous character of the course compels the student to decide upon his future career at a very premature stage when he is entering Class IX and is about 13 or 14 years old. This is academically undesirable and in fact, Dr. D. S. Kothari has condemned it as a system of "child marriage". The Education Commission was therefore strongly of the view that the secondary stage should be broken into two parts at the end of Class X, that the students should continue to receive general education till the end of this stage, and that in the next higher secondary stage of two years, two distinct streams should be introduced, one stream preparing the students for admission to universities and the other preparing them for different vocational

10

courses which would be terminal in character. The Commission also felt that the enrolment in courses of a vocational or terminal character should be as high as 50 per cent of the total.

It must also be pointed out that the Education Commission was not happy with the existing higher secondary pattern of 8+3 which provides seven different streams-Humanities, Science, Technical, Commercial, Agriculture, Fine Arts and Home Science and requires every student to join one stream of his choice. The vocational courses provided in this pattern have one major weakness their vocational content necessarily remains weak because the total time available is limited. These courses, therefore, do not become terminal and do not prepare the students for the pursuit of a vocation at the end of the secondary stage. In fact, they do not even prepare them for admission to the corresponding vocational courses at the university stage. The vocational courses in this stream have therefore never become either popular or terminal. Since the programme of vocationalization of se- condary education is extremely important and since it is obviously urgent to divert a fair proportion of students into different walks of life at the end of the secondary stage and thus reduce the pressures on university admissions, the Education Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the existing higher secondary pattern of 8+3 should be replaced by the proposed higher secondary pattern of 10+2.

Two important points must be mentioned in regard to the proposed reorganisation of school education:

(1) In the old days, and even in the multipurpose system introduced by the Secondary Education Commission, science and mathematics tended to be neglected. They were studied only till the end of Class VIII, and thereafter the student had the option to omit them if he so desired. In many secondary schools, even the provision for the teaching of these subjects did not exist. The net result was that more than 50 per cent of the students at the secondary stage were deprived of basic education in science and mathematics. Adequate teaching of science and mathematics is essential in the modern world based

11

on science and technology. It is equally necessary to improve the quality of education and to avoid the dangers resulting from a dichotomy of the "two cultures" of science and of humanities. Above all, a society like ours, which is committed to the ideals of socialism, has to ensure vertical mobility to the manual workers, whether engaged in industry or agriculture. For this purpose, it must provide the necessary grounding in science and mathematics to every person as a part of his school education because, without this, vertical mobility is not attainable. The Education Commission, therefore, rightly recommended that the teaching of science and mathematics should be obligatory till the end of Class X.

(2) While a student should ordinarily be expected to decide whether he will go in for a vocational course or into the university stream at the end of Class X (when he is about 16 years of age), it goes without saying that such decisions would be tentative and that some young persons may like to change from one stream to the other at a later stage. The Central Advisory Board of Education, therefore, specifically recommended that such later transfers from one stream to the other should not only be permitted but also facilitated by due provision for transfer of credits on this account. The importance of this recommendation is obvious.

I have already pointed out that, even as early as 1919, the Calcutta University Commission had recommended that the course leading to the first degree should have a duration of three years. With the passage of time, the opinion on the subject has now become even stronger for three main reasons. Firstly, there is now a much greater demand for specialization on account of the explosion of knowledge and, at the same time, there is also a demand for greater general education to enable the young persons to face successfully the complex societies of the modern period. Secondly, there is now a much greater demand for inter-disciplinary courses (including inter-Faculty ones) and for the provision of greater elasticity to the students to choose subjects of study

12

to match their individual capacities and interests. Thirdly, there is also a greater emphasis on providing practical experience, op- portunities for field work and project-oriented studies at the under- graduate stage to improve the standards of education and to bring the system of higher education in close contact with the community around, through programmes of social and national service. If these important purposes are to be satisfactorily achieved, it goes without saying that a two-year duration is extremely inadequate for the undergraduate stage and that the new courses for the first degree will need a minimum duration of three years.

The foregoing discussion will show that the new pattern of 10+2+3 for school and college classes is an educational reform of great significance, that it is based on several important academic considerations, and is vastly superior to the alternative patterns that now prevail and that its universal adoption in all parts of the country will bring in several advantages among which the following may be mentioned:

(1) The school stage will be strengthened and its standards .will improve because of its lengthening to twelve years and because of the inclusion, within it, of the intermediate stage which will bring in better teachers and better facilities.

(2) The two-year higher secondary stage will have several advantages. It will enable us to control expansion to some extent because an element of selective admission can be introduced at this point. The students will also be mature enough, when they enter Class XI to make a tentative decision about their future career and to embark upon some programmes of prespecializations. It will enable the schools to prepare their gifted students intensively for the University and also to provide remedial action for any shortcomings arising from weaknesses in earlier education. Above all, it will be possible to vocationalise this stage intensively so that a fair proportion of students (ultimately as large as 50 per cent) can be diverted into different walks of life, thus reducing

13

the pressures on university admissions. An important and necessary innovation at this stage would be to provide for transfer of credits to a student who may desire to change from one stream to another.

(3) The standards in higher education will also improve as the students going into the university stream will now be better prepared and more mature.

(4) The three-year degree course would be a definite improvement on the existing two-year course for the first degree. With this longer duration, it will be possible to meet the demands of specialization as well as of a broad based general and interdisciplinary education and to make adequate provision for practical experience, field work and project-oriented studies. The introduction of problem-oriented interdisciplinary courses at the Master's degree level would also be greatly facilitated with the adoption of 10+2+3 formula.

Some Misconceptions

In spite of all these academic considerations in favour of the uniform adoption of the common pattern of 10+2+3 for school and college classes, it is really unfortunate that there are several misconceptions on the subject which interfere with a proper implementation of the programme. It is necessary to clear these misconceptions if the programme is to succeed.

There is an unfortunate tendency, in certain quarters, to regard the arithmetic of the pattern (whether it is 11+ 2 + 2 or 11 + 1+ 3 or any other combination) as far more important than the substance of the reform which consists of the vocationalization of the higher secondary stage and improvement of standards, both in school and university education. I would like to state it categorically that the arithmetic of the structure is of no consequence whatsoever and that even the structure of the educational system is of little importance. We should not, therefore, look at this proposal of adopting a new pattern of school and college classes on a uniform basis throughout the country either as an arithmetical problem or even as a purely structural problem. We

14

must regard it as a fundamental educational reform for strengthening both the school and university stages of education and of making the secondary stage terminal through a programme of vocationalization. If these basic objectives are not emphasised and achieved, a mere adoption of some other arithmetic or a different structure will not serve any useful purpose.

Another common misconception is that, in adopting a common pattern of school and college classes, we must look elsewhere for precedent,%. and support our argument with illustrations from other countries. This is hardly necessary and in fact would be an incorrect procedure. I have had the opportunity to study the pattern of education in many friendly countries. I have found that there is no uniform pattern of school and college classes in the different countries of the world, and not even in the socialist countries whose educational systems tend to be uniform. Each country has evolved its own pattern in accordance with its own peculiar circumstances. It is therefore, not desirable to change our pattern of school and college classes on the basis of the patterns prevailing in other countries. The Education Commission rightly emphasised that we must outgrow this imitative attitude and should introduce changes in our pattern slowly "on the basis of our own indigenous thinking after taking into account what is happening outside, but without being dominated by it".*2

Yet another misunderstanding, which is often propagated by certain vested interests is that the adoption of the new pattern will adversely affect the interests of school and college teachers. Nothing can be farther from truth. The school teachers have everything to gain by the adoption of the pattern because more posts will be created at the school stage at higher levels. Even the college teachers have nothing to lose because we have insisted that in spite of a temporary setback in enrolments, there should be no retrenchment. The setback in enrolments also will be more than made up in three or four years by the natural increase in enrolments that will necessarily take place from year to year. What is even more important, the teachers in higher education will have much better job satisfaction because of the qualitatively better students that will now be entering the university system.