Behavioral Education

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

We often listened or heard that education should be practical or it should enhance some skills to students. Mostly Maoist revolution had pronounced it too much that they used to patter it as people’s education which could fulfil their wishes or that would be the demand of New Nepal. The motto of education is mostly applicable in our private life in comparison to public. It is believed that students should feel independent to live with the skills they have learnt or the purpose of education is to make people sustain them independently. Reformists have furiously opposed the educational system which has been existing. They blame it as rote learning; parrot learning; feeding system; conventional or Gurukal type and so on. The cognitive mode of education is too old and traditional which is useless or it should be abolished as the pundits have argued. Or they have the belief that they could apply panacea in education system so that they can expedite the development course.

The modern scholars would argue that education should be non-cognitive or practical ignoring the fact. Education should have power to enhance development which is much psychological rather than mechanical. It should enhance skills to people; so the designers have been formulating the course as per the demand of time. In our country, there is provision that school curriculum should be changed in every 10 years addressing the need of time. A separate department, Curriculum Development Center (CDC), is established under Education Ministry to implement new courses. Some scholars would also be called from out of the government services for assistance. They have been hired as consultants who have given suggestions taking bulky money.

The irony is that the plight of education is always same; or those who have designed it would start to denounce just then. In spite of the effort made by all the government and non-governmental persons why the education hasn’t been practical or behavioral. What is the mistake behind it? Who is responsible of not making practical or behavioral? Why it becomes a bone of contention? Who is responsible for that? The curriculum development center has also invited scholars from foreign country and they have come to assist of being the advocator of new trend of education in the world. Why don’t they be able to frame such course? Certainly the foreigner would be called from high profile countries and scholars. Why can’t they frame practical or behavioral course?

We have considered scholars as seniors only who have consulting power or they have got extensive knowledge of the subject matter. In spite of their vigorous effort the plight of education remains always same or problematic. No chance of improvement can be seen as it has been coming as saga. The best evidence can be seen that the consultation of the foreign scholars, national consultants, and the scholars of the CDC have gone waste. It has different meanings: either they have no knowledge; or they don’t have such capacity to frame it; or there is political influence; or they must have been less educated; or they haven’t been paid well. The so-called revolutionary party had also formed government three times and we can’t see any visible improvement in the system. Where is the mistake? Are we trying to solve the problem? Or are we going to create even more problem? Aren’t there any scholars to solve it?

I think that the fact is ignored as practical or behavioral education is forced to us. After all we have been seeking percentage only instead of practical education. The colleges, agencies, institutions have sought percentage of students while selecting them. So it is unquestionable subject matter to all that the marks in marksheet determine the future of the students. Those who have argued about the practical and behavioral education also can’t reject it. They have also followed the same trend or they are mesmerized with good percentage. They have even awarded the persons who have got more percentage learning by heart; or they have said that is the practical education. Neither, why do they award them? Are they real or fake? I can’t understand that the same education is practical or behavioral to those who can secure good marks whereas it is useless to those who haven’t got good marks. I can’t understand the controversy or mistake in the system.

I have discussed with one of the scholars who have done doctorate in education about the differences of private and public school. He argued that private was bad as they have applied cognitive methods in teaching whereas public school students have more non-cognitive style of learning. Some government reports have also come to such conclusion of measuring learning achievement. At the final stage of debate he admitted the percentage of the student is the determining factor or measuring rod of their quality though we have advocated about practical or behavioral education. He dismissed all the things what he talked to me at first. Realizing the fact that educational philosophies have been arguing this and that but they can’t guide the education as a whole. All philosophies are part or they can never be whole. They have tried to be accurate with lopsided arguments and ideas.

I want to question why scholars have been sharing their weaknesses to the commoner ignoring their scholasticism. It means we have to question to the scholars first in which they have framed the policy but they have implemented another philosophy. Why don’t they frame the curriculum applying only one philosophy of education so that education becomes practical or behavioral? I haven’t even listened that the so-called developed countries have also been able to implement adequate policy or philosophy in their countries. The realization is that the policy formation policy of scholars has had defect. They don’t find any solution of the problem rather it has been politicized only or to vomit their so-called scholasticism. No standard rule is set to address human mind as it has been varied and all inclusive.

It reminds me post-modern concept of the Jack Derrida, in which reality is part or it has been fluctuating. We can’t get reality or fact in this world as we have been made deformed with social rules, regulations, government policies, and scanty understandings through education. The entire mind is relative or it has been aiming to stick to pluralism. The society has given some position to them and they have been fulfilling their duty in the world. They don’t have any magical rod to solve all the problems.

The relative mind of the scholars has put us in confusion so it is questionable. The concept of post-modern is that we have to return back to the olden time which was fit for us. Or it would be better to be ignorant rather than one sided preacher of so-called knowledge. The scholars who try to be true or evidential today are false as we have already argued. There is no solution of the argument except of leaving the field with self-realization. Human mind is always part and we have been seeking or pretending to be whole. Or we have been trying to be whole advocating something to prove us as scholars. If so, what may be the solution?