Re-learning science teaching

In fact, my science congress address was in response to the 1990 recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Council to the PM. The Council had accepted that science education was bad in the country but while 15 sub-committees were constituted to recommend how different areas can be developed in various national laboratories, not one sub-committee was set up to discuss science education in universities!

It is therefore a matter of great satisfaction that the Scientific Advisory Council meeting in July had come out strongly in support of science education in universities. The address of the chairman, C.N.R. Rao, ‘Science in Crisis: A Commentary on the Present State of Science in the Country’ deserves the full support of the country. Soon after, the Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, and the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, focused on increasing and improving the ‘supply side’ of the scientific and technological community. They stressed that a major change is needed to attract a large number of young Indians to science-based careers and have recommended to the Planning Commission to come forward with a support of Rs 7,334 crore in the XI Plan. This money, as a first step, is basically meant for special assistance to the 10 premier universities, upgrade of state universities, undergraduate science teaching in leading universities and IITs and enhanced assistance to 200 undergraduate colleges. I only wished they had also added to this list, some 1000 schools apart from

Central schools and Navodaya Vidyalayas. I hope the Planning Commission will consider the recommendations favourably. They will help to sensitise society at large to the potential inherent in such an investment.

The same Scientific Advisory Council, two years ago, had strongly recommended the setting up of two Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISER) at Pune and Kolkata. A sum of Rs 500 crore each was allocated as a start. It was also agreed that a third would be added at Mohali. The HRD ministry has recently cleared a fourth one in Orissa. A fifth and sixth are in the pipeline for Bhopal and Thiruvnanathapuram. I am sure further requests would come from other states as well.

I am not against this at all, but why is it that at least the better universities were not considered suitable for providing good science education? Why do we show this distrust towards our universities? I am afraid that in case of a financial crunch, it would be the universities that would suffer first. It is fortunate that the present government has accepted the recommendations of the Kothari Commission (1966) and the National Policy of Education (1986) that a minimum of 6 per cent of GDP would be spent on education, although all the previous governments had also promised it. Further, it is heartening that the Planning Commission is going to raise the funding for education in a big way in the XI Plan.

The Parliament has reserved 27 per cent of seats for OBCs in higher education across the board and has ordered the increase of that percentage of seats in universities and colleges for which funds would be provided by the government. This is no doubt necessary in the overall interest of the nation. However, it has recently been reported that the Moily Committee, at present, has accepted only about 20 per cent of the amount requested for by JNU and the Delhi University for infrastructure, faculty and other requirements. This may be the case for all the other universities as well. How are the institutions going to manage this mandated increase in their seats without the necessary funding? Teaching does not mean only providing tables and chairs. If a proper support system is not put in place, it will only result in a further deterioration of standards in our universities and colleges. This is something India can ill afford.

The writer is a former vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University