Educational
planning should aim at meeting the educational needs of the entire population
of all age groups. While the traditional structure of education as a three
layer hierarchy from the primary stage to the university represents the core,
we should not overlook the periphery which is equally important. Under modern
conditions, workers need to rewind, or renew their enthusiasm, or strike out in
a new direction, or improve their skills as much as any university professor.
The retired and the aged have their needs as well. Educational planning, in
their words, should take care of the needs of everyone.
Our
structures of education have been built up on the assumption that there is a
terminal point to education. This basic defect has become all the more harmful
today. A UNESCO report, titled "Learning to Be" prepared by Edgar
Faure and others in 1973 asserts that the education of children must prepare
the future adult for various forms of self-learning. A viable education system
of the future should consist of modules with different kinds of functions
serving a diversity of constituents. And performance, not the period of study,
should be the basis for credentials. The writing is already on the wall.
In
view of the fact that the significance of a commitment of lifelong learning and
lifetime education is being discussed only in recent years even in
educationally advanced countries, the possibility of the idea becoming an
integral part of educational thinking seems to be a far cry. For, to move in
that direction means much more than some simple rearrangement of the present
organization of education. But a good beginning can be made by developing Open
University programs for older learners of different categories and introducing
extension services in the conventional colleges and schools. Also, these
institutions should learn to cooperate with the numerous community
organizations such as libraries, museums, municipal recreational programs,
health services etc.
Q: What should be the major characteristic of the future educational?
The
history of literature can be traced to the earliest forms of the arts. Man
danced for joy round his primitive camp fire after the defeat and slaughter of
his enemy. He yelled and shouted as he danced and gradually the yells and
shouts became coherent and caught the measure of the dance and thus the first
war song was sung. As the idea of God developed, prayers were framed. The songs
and prayers became traditional and were repeated from one generation to
another, each generation adding something of its own.
As
man slowly grew more civilized, he was compelled to invent some method of
writing due to three urgent necessities. There were certain things that it was
dangerous to forget and which, therefore, had to be recorded. It was often
necessary to communicate with persons who were some distance away and it was
necessary to safeguard one's property by making appropreiate tools and taking
protective measure in a distinctive manner. So man taught himself to write and
having learned to write, purely for utilitarian reasons, he used this new method
for preserving his war songs and his prayers. Of course, among these ancient
peoples, there were only a very few individuals who learned to write, and only
a few could read what was written.
Q: Man invented writing because he wanted
Democratic
societies from the earliest times have expected their governments to protect
the weak against the strong. No 'era of good feeling' can justify discharging
the police force or giving up the idea of public control over concentrated
private wealth. On the other hand, it is obvious that a spirit of self-denial
and moderation on the part of those who hold economic power will greatly soften
the demand for absolute equality. Men are more interested in freedom and
security than in an equal distribution of wealth. The extent to which
Government must interfere with business, therefore, is not exactly measured by
the extent to which economic power is concentrated into a few hands. The
required degree of government interference depends mainly on whether economic
powers are oppressively used, and on the necessity of keeping economic factors
in a tolerable state of balance.
