Martin Luther King once said, "The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education." While nobody disagrees with King, the goal is far from achieved—in both developing and developed countries alike. Few countries are closer to this goal, whereas many others are still very far away. Unfortunately, Nepal falls into the latter group. While the numbers of schools in both secondary and higher secondary levels in Nepal have risen significantly over the last decade, the quality of their education has been unsatisfactory. Part of it is due to our failure to update curriculum on a timely manner and have policies that address not only short-term needs but also define where we are headed as a nation. However, in the era of smartphones and technology, the new policies are doomed to fail if we don't redefine the way we teach and learn in classrooms and beyond.In recent years, Nepal has seen an increase in the number of private schools. Although the Ministry of Education (MoE) has a long list of prerequisites and basic infrastructure for new schools to get registration, they are hardly implemented. Most schools are run in a single building with limited resources for students' overall development. As a matter of fact, there are only a handful of schools that fulfill the criteria that ministry requires. Private schools are attracting students by labeling themselves "English medium schools." This is a blatant and highly marketable lie, as Shyam Sharma pointed out in his recent article (Whither education policy?) for Republica.
The problem is lack of resources and training, Sharma concludes, "Teachers don't teach well in English, and students don't learn well in it." As recent data suggest, many public schools are also switching to English medium, which Sharma hints as a recipe for disaster for public sector education. Even private sector education, with an exception of a handful of schools, is not immune to such disaster. Therefore, time has come for us to pause for a moment and define our educational objectives. Good schools and practices should be awarded, whereas ill-prepared schools should be kept under close scrutiny, even penalized. After all, the overall goal of education is holistic development of students—not only as better thinkers, but also as better citizens. As King points out, our schools should focus on building character with intelligence.
The current trend of westernization in our school system is disturbing. Private schools using English as a marketable entity, in a nutshell, underscores colonial mindset that merits supremacy based on the language spoken. It is a dangerous thing to do, as it's not about how well somebody can speak English, nor is it about using English as a means of instruction that improves the quality. The real issue is much more complex than the language. Learning in English alone does not make us better scholars, learning effectively does.
We are not teaching our children how to think, how to analyze context, how to synthesize materials, and how to write effectively. It does not matter which language we use to teach any of the above, so long as we are not doing it effectively. These are basic communication skills that students will carry forward to their workplace in the future. Our education system, at the moment, is analogous to banking practices as Paulo Freire suggests in his Pedagogy of the oppressed—where students are depositories and the teacher is the depositor.
Our methodology has been nothing but narrative where the words are perceived for words and not for their transforming power. Students learn "four times four is sixteen", and memorize and repeat these phrases without perceiving what that really mean. Our system regards students as mere "containers" to be filled by teachers—where the teachers are judged by how much (not how well) they fill the "containers" and students by how much they let themselves to be filled. Instead of active communication, teachers deposit and students patiently receive, memorize and repeat.
In what is already flawed methodology, adding a foreign language as a means of instruction does more harm than good. It is likely that the key concepts and ideas in science, philosophy and fine arts will not be completely understood when they are taught in a foreign language, especially by teachers who are not qualified and trained, in an environment that lacks resources. As our system is examination-centric, students will pass the exams, sometimes often with flying colors, yet will not understand the breadth of the material they studied.
This practice does not encourage creativity, not does it enhance knowledge. (As Paulo argues, "Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through restless, impatient and hopeful inquiry.") And that comes across quite easily, as many of our graduates who go abroad for higher education cannot cope up in a research environment which demands much more than memorizing facts and definitions. Students who stay in the country are also not prepared for the job market.
Since we don't focus on experiential learning—as how the concepts we learn apply to the real world, both at micro and macro levels, we are not producing many entrepreneurs. The rise in unemployment rate and mass exodus of youth are just two of the many adverse effects of our fallacious education system. One needs a solid understanding of the principles to gain the ability to analyze and draw conclusions. That understanding only comes when materials are taught critically. We ought to encourage an active communication between teachers and students—where teachers and students both are educators and learners.
Our problem is rooted in the prevalent practice of 'banking education'. Even in higher education setting, our students repeatedly memorize, repeat, and plagiarize in exams/projects as reflected in the homogeneity of their answers. We don't inspire students to be innovative and original by awarding excellence on length and not on creativity. We need not only better educational policies, but also student-centric educational practices, which means we will have to change our existing mindset. In this era, we will also need to use technology to our advantage. Collaboration through technology lets teachers to promote teamwork and link their students to classrooms and resources across the globe. In a country like Nepal, where resources are hard to get, technology can provide a leap forward in the way we teach and in the way we learn and sharpen our creativity.
The author is a PhD candidate at the Chemical & Physical Biology Program (CPBP) at Vanderbilt University
Related story
Change of Guard and OBOR
