8. EDUCATION POLICY:
Regarding
national and international educational policies, I shall address two (2)
themes, the first is related to the relationship between primary and secondary
socialization vis a vis different cultural values, and second, the meaning of international
educational values propagated and the problematic nature of international educational
policies.
Berger
and Luckmann write about the continuity of primary and secondary socialization,
“The formal processes of secondary socialization are determined by its
fundamental problem: it always presupposes a preceding process of primary
socialization; that is, that it must deal with an already formed self and an
already internalized world. It cannot construct subjective reality ex nihilo.
This presents a problem because the already internalized reality has a tendency
to persist. Whatever new contents are now to be internalized must somehow be
superimposed upon this already present reality. There is, therefore, a problem
of consistency between the original and the new internalizations … To establish
and maintain consistency, secondary socialization presupposes conceptual procedures
to integrate different bodies of knowledge.”[1] In western countries, and other predominantly
Christian nations, the harmonious continuity between primary socialization and
secondary socialization in professional education is achieved. The Ideas of a concealed
nature of socialization, the silent and docile character, providing service to
others are evident in both the education of the Christian and the professional.
In essence, instrumentalization of diversity in forming habits of service with
the hope of achieving heaven (in Christian Faith) and economic livelihood in
becoming a professional becomes a reality. The mission of service is heavenly worship
and worldly economic viability.
In
national education policies around the world, we confront language referring to
educational aims and objectives that promote economic viability, the Pakistan National
Education Policy 2009, supported by international organization, states, “There
are compelling reasons for a reaffirmation. New research provides convincing
evidence of education’s contribution to both economic and social development,
which can be achieved simultaneously, because the processes of economic growth
and social development are interlinked.[2] Is the language, in referring to the
economy, about forming experts or about delivering servants?
Social
development though primary and secondary socialization could achieve economic
development though the systematic habit-forming destructive subjugation to
diversity rendering the subject ‘prejudice free’, ‘responsive’, and
‘adaptable’. In a different culture, as is the case in Pakistan – a
predominantly Islamic state with different core values -- the process seems to be
problematic. Does primary socialization contradict secondary socialization? Burger
and Luckmann clarify the conditions for successful social conversion, “The
plausibility structures of religious conversion have been imitated by secular
agencies of alternation … The plausibility structure must become the
individual's world, displacing all other worlds, especially the world the
individual 'inhabited' before his alternation. This requires segregation of the
individual from the 'inhabitants' of other worlds, especially his 'cohabitants'
in the world he has left behind. Ideally this will be physical segregation …
The alternating individual disaffiliates himself from his previous world and
the plausibility structure that sustained it, bodily, if possible, mentally if
not. In either case he is no longer 'yoked together with unbelievers', and thus
is protected from their potential reality-disrupting influence.[3] The school, in segregating children
from their communities, might be the platform of a primary re-socialization --
after the early years with parents as significant other -- to be continued in
secondary socialization efficiently and effectively. Alternatively, particular
educational experiences shows also that the tacit nature of progressive
education, i.e., experiencing diversity with the aim of creating a responsive
person, is circumvented by those who live the experience but understand it in
terms of their convictions that recognize a diverse reality and differing
viewpoints of those that inhabit it. The silent event opens itself up to
multiple interpretation. Gadamer supports the idea that prejudice is an
integral part of understanding (see above). In this case the pedagogical
results are nulled.
In
2018 the Government of Pakistan has changed its education policy. Objections to
the new policy have been tabled, “The government’s 2018 National Education
Policy is applicable to private schools and private school systems, as well as
the public sector. It does not seek a ‘harmonization’ of curricula, with an
implicit recognition of the value of diversity, rather it seeks one uniform
curriculum across the whole country.”[4] And furthermore the objections state
that the new policy is, “incongruent with the skills and attitudes required to
be a 21st century citizen within a free and democratic society.”[5] The values of diversity in creating
skills and attitudes that ensure responsive professional conduct lead to a
‘free’ and ‘democratic’ society. The call for ‘harmonization’ seems to be in
contradiction with the value of diversity unless you really mean the effect of
diversity, i.e., its destructive affect and the intentional destruction of
diversity in the process. Islam as a tradition values diversity as a positive structure
within reality, understands and safeguards the necessity of personal prejudices
adopted as well as calls for a knowledge-based economy, society and existence.
I hope the reader, especially those participating in the system with no grasp of its fundamental values or are of another tradition, is now more sensitive to the ambiguous language used to address education on the international scene, The educational language refers to adjectives and adverbs of substantive knowledge and action, e.g., skills, tools and values, or harmonization, freedom and democracy (used above), without specification as to which particular skills, tools and values are to be learned or what understandings and habits are internalized. This 'dog-whistle' communication is meant for the narrow community that know and understand the aims. A good example can be noticed in the language used by The International Commission on Education for the 21st Century citing “four key principles that children and youth need to be able to participate nationally and internationally: 1. Learning to know: to provide the cognitive tools required to better comprehend the world and its complexities, and to provide an appropriate and adequate foundation for future learning. 2. Learning to do: to provide the skills that would enable individuals to effectively participate in the global knowledge economy and society. 3. Learning to be: to provide self-analytical and social skills to enable individuals to develop to their fullest potential psycho-socially, affectively as well as physically, for an all-round complete person. 4. Learning to live together: to expose individuals to the values implicit within human rights, democratic principles, intercultural understanding and respect and peace at all levels of society and human relationships to enable individuals and societies to live in peace and harmony.[6] To emphasis and decipher the statement: comprehend the world and its complexities, i.e., understanding it takes an unprejudicial person to deal with cultural diversity; the skills to effectively participate in the global knowledge economy and society, i.e., to respond and serve economic enterprises and other in society; to develop to their fullest potential psycho-socially, i.e. become silent, docile, and humble; and expose individuals to the values implicit within human rights, democratic principles, intercultural understanding, i.e. be tolerant of different cultures continuously underpinned by lifelong education. All with hope for universal wellbeing! Evidently, wellbeing is about suffering, submission and service of others.
To
press the point, UNESCO core values refer to “health and well-being”, “prepare
them to be free and responsible citizens in democratic processes of
decision-making”, “agents of healthy change”, “global diversity of knowledge,
perspectives and experiences”, and “health and education of children and young
people are rooted in different social, economical, environmental, political,
cultural and religious contexts”. Furthermore, UNESCO core principles refer to
“should view health, well-being and education as mutually interdependent”,
“Activities will (1) be carried out in genuine collaboration between partners
from different parts of the world and (2) have clear global relevance”,
“collaboration between key partners and stakeholders to facilitate optimal
synergy and effectiveness”, “Cultural sensitivity and ethical acceptability”,
“stakeholders and users at all levels will be actively involved in developing,
testing and implementing new models”, “innovative approaches developed
introduced to schools and other educational settings should align with these
sectors’ core business”, and “Diversity of research approaches. Research will
aim to (1) develop new and effective approaches, (2) test their feasibility and
effectiveness and (3) implement and upscale new interventions.”[7] Keywords are
well-being, free, change, diversity, different, collaboration, stakeholders,
effectiveness, culture, acceptability, innovative, core business. Basically,
the core business of education is for diverse stakeholders to collaborate in
order to innovatively and effectively a result in adaptable personalities, free
from prejudice, to accept different cultures and ensure well-being. And
finally, Christopher L. Eisgrube, President of Princeton University, clarifies what
matters in education, “high-quality faculty actively engaged in undergraduate
instruction, including through the individualized supervision of independent
work; and a learning culture composed of diverse students who study hard and
educate one another.”[8] (my italics)
For
one prejudicial community to understand that other people, with their
differences, can also be right, is a conundrum. The solution is either to
recognize that ‘right’ is relative or find the mother of all prejudices that can
care for its children. I believe, Gadamer has dispelled the delusion of
emancipation when he situates emancipation within a tradition, the fundamental
prejudice of which is the prejudice against prejudice. Alternatively, we should
seek a mighty prejudice that needs no followers; that recognizes diversity, that
provides for all, and one that has created conditions for freedom of belief.
The
international educational curriculum is a cultural product and is propagated on
the international scale to diverse cultures. The curriculum, seeking to create
the meek or a ministry of service, might be justified by some as an act of
redemption seeking salvation, or guaranteeing worldly livelihood. The
focus on skills and attitude that favor service rather than knowledge would
render populations consumers to be dominated by or supporting the international
economic scene. Yet, the overproduction of labor has, at the end of the day,
reproduced replaceable labor force and collapsed cost of manpower, e.g., labor
income, ensuring in an inflationary environment growth of poverty. Alternatively,
the education policy should honor the fundamental aspects of existence
including belief, diversity and conceptualization that underpin, through
interpersonal discourse or text, understanding as interplay of emancipation and
prejudice. Creativity, the primary economic growth catalyst, is enabled by
knowledge not skills.
[1] Opcit, Burger and Luckmann p. 160
[2] Pakistan National Education Policy
2009, p.9-10
[3] Opcit, Burger and Luckmann p, 178
[4] Burke, Lawrence. PAKISTAN’S 2018 NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY: THE
NATIONALIZATION OF THE PRIVATE EDUCATION SECTOR? Lahore, Pakistan.
[5] Ibid Burke.
[6] UNESCO, 2013.
[7] https://unescochair-ghe.org/the-unesco-chair-ghe/values-and-principles/
[8] Eisgrube
C., Opinion: I lead
America’s top-ranked university. Here’s why these rankings are a problem. October 21, 2021 at 2:39 p.m. EDT.