Education of the Deprived Groups: Who Takes the Decision?

In the present school education scenario, if there is one debate which seems to be endless, it is the use of mother-tongue versus English as the medium of instruction. One may wonder what the dispute all about is because commonly it is agreed upon that English is the language which has got a global currency. No other language ensures access to higher education, employment and other resources which English does. I said so not because I believe it in completely but it is the assumption that people have about English in general. This assumption has now turned into a belief particularly in developing countries like India and South Africa where struggle to preserve the indigenous languages like Sanskrit and Afrikaans in education have been intense but they finally resorted to English. Earlier, there were societies which wanted their children to be educated in the mother-tongue so that they value their culture and remain rooted in it. But now the system from top to bottom beginning with the State to the parents and children, everyone is emphasizing English school education.

In this whole picture of demand for education in mother-tongue and later for English education, the marginal sections of the society seldom have a say. By marginal sections, I mean the people who are both economically and socially deprived. The so-called lower castes in India which include SC (Dalits), ST and OBC have been oppressed over the years and receiving basic education too was not easy for them. English became an instrument for them to bring about a change in their condition. Similarly, the people of Black community in America are stressing more on the formal English education so that they can compete with others in the world outside their community.

So, what makes English so important for the poor, the lower castes and those who are discriminated on the basis of race and skin colour? Does it really help them when the medium of instruction is bilingual? What effects does it have on their learning and what schools can do to help them in progressing? These are some of the questions that arose in my mind when I read the articles by Lisa D. Delpit (1988) called “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children” and few articles by Kancha Ilaiah on education of the Dalit. Further in this article, I will be elaborating some of the issues that both of these authors deal with. While Delpit’s paper is based in the American context, Ilaiah’s articles are about education in Indian society, so it will be a ground for me to compare their perspectives as well.

Delpit (1988) focuses on the teaching methods used in the classrooms and what effects these methods have on the learning of children from poor and Black community in America. She takes the debate over process-oriented versus skills-oriented writing instruction as the base of the paper to argue what teachers should do to help the children from minority groups in learning and grasping concepts easily. In skills-oriented approach, the learning occurs from top (teacher) to down (student). The teacher is like an instructor who tells the student everything he needs to know using lectures, assignments, and such conventional methods in order to attain a certain goal mostly good results in the examination, graduation, etc. (Knowles, 1975, cited in Morris, 2010). Process-oriented approach engages students in self-study, group activities, discussions which are guided by the teacher but does not need him to interfere always. The students are given the freedom to express themselves by writing on topics relevant to them personally as well as culturally and the teacher later gives them feedback and follow-up instructions so that they can improve their writing skills (Troia et al., 2009, cited in Morris, 2010). This approach is useful for classes where number of students is large and thus forming groups to allow them discuss and write on a given topic helps the teacher manage and focus on individual students.

Narratives of some Black students and teachers about their experience in White majority classrooms all say the same thing- they are not heard by the White (teachers and students). Their personal experiences, their problems, their socio-economic background are not counted in as important while teaching Black children themselves. The White people believe that they know what is appropriate to be taught for all children including the Black, they trust research work done by other White people but do not consider the suggestions of fellow Black teachers and students in improving education for the Black. Delpit herself is a Black educator and she also faced such situations in classrooms where the process-oriented approach which is mostly used in American schools, did not prove to be beneficial for the Black students as compared to the White. She says that the dismissal of skills-oriented approach by the progressive educators is not good for the poor and Black children as they are not acquainted with the culture of the White people which dominates the curriculum and pedagogy in classroom. She says that this unquestioned authority of a particular section over the educational practices of the society can be termed as “culture of power”.

The authority of the teacher over students and the curriculum makers’ power to design the content and methods as per their world views are some of the issues of power that are enacted in the classroom. Mannerism of interacting, writing and dressing form the rules to be a part of the culture of power. These all represent the people i.e., middle class and upper class who hold this power but children from the lower class who are alien to this culture find it difficult to follow and survive in this code of conduct. The most important thing Delpit brings out of this discussion is that if rules of a culture are told explicitly, it is easier to follow them and succeed for people from other cultures. She gives example of a reading program called Distar which needs the teacher “to maintain the full attention of the group by continuous questioning, eye contact, finger snaps, hand claps, and other gestures, and by eliciting choral responses and initiating some sort of award system” (p.284). She says that this initiative helped all the children including the culturally deprived ones in learning to read. She refers to a study by Siddle (1988) which shows that direct instruction of standard writing procedures by teacher resulted in improvement in writing skills of the Black children while peer conferencing had the least effect. But here comes the last aspect of the culture of power which opposes explicit instruction to the students. She says that those who have the power do not acknowledge it while those who are deprived of it are more conscious to acquire it. Liberal educators believe that expressing the power of knowledge a teacher has in the classroom will not give opportunities to students to explore and grow. Children from upper class come to the school with the knowledge of mannerism and skills required by the education system but other children do not have that culture at home and so they need to be told explicitly what is expected from them and how they can achieve it. Thus the belief of the liberal educators deprives the poor and Black children from success even before they could try for it.

She gives an example of a Native Alaskan teacher who deals with children who talk in what is called as Black English while the schools expect them to write in Formal English. She says that activities like letting the children interact with “various personnel officers in actual workplaces about their attitudes toward divergent styles in oral and written language” (p.295), asking the students to compare different writing styles, telling them the technical details of formal writing procedures, etc. helps them to learn writing in Formal English while not having to let go their own dialect of English which they use while talking within their groups. I felt it interesting that throughout the paper, Delpit never promotes the methods or language of the dominant people but takes a pragmatic approach while saying that “they must be encouraged to understand the value of the code they already possess as well as to understand the power realities in this country” (p.293).

Delpit suggests that schools should teach these children the basic tenets of the culture which they do not get at home. Being from a different culture should not deny them access to quality education and later employment. She does not advocate the culture of power but says that “to act as if power does not exist is to ensure that the power status quo remains the same” (p.292). Thus, it is important that schools encourage the children from minority groups to value their own culture too but learn the styles and codes of the political world which exists outside the educational system. The teacher should not restrain herself from giving her expert knowledge to students but should also allow them to build concepts based on their contextual and socially relevant knowledge.

Delpit asserts that it is essential to involve the adults of the community in the decisions regarding content and methods appropriate for their children (p. 296). If they wish their children to learn and abide by the rules of the dominant culture because that will lead them to success, they have the right to demand for it and State should provide them with such education. No one from other cultures should interfere and decide what children of minority groups should study. She presents a wonderful thought that “We do not really see through our eyes or hear through our ears, but through our beliefs” (p.297) and thus the people from both the sides i.e., those who are in majority and those who are deprived from power should communicate their beliefs and needs with an open mind so that it can be decided properly and in a just manner what is best for the children of the poor and children of color (p. 296).  

Kancha Ilaiah’s articles mainly talk about the conflicts between regional language and English as the medium of instruction in schools in India. He says that in India, the regional language schools cater to students from lower caste while English medium schools are meant for the upper caste children. Macaulay’s minute emphasized educating the upper castes in English so that they could be employed as clerks and government servants and eventually spread English education to the masses (Macaulay, 1835). But the upper castes claimed their authority over English language just as they did over Sanskrit and did not let English education reach the lower castes. This is similar to the case of Black people who find it difficult to access English education because the White think that the Black need not excel in English and rather follow their own language. Even when the State provided English education through the missionary schools, the caste Hindu people did not allow the Dalits to join them and forced them to study either in local board schools which did not teach in English medium or in the crowded verandahs of the missionary schools (Constable, 2000).

He says that the assumption that teaching in regional language in the first few years of school will make it easier for children to learn English later is wrong (Ilaiah, 2007). He supports the step taken by AP government in implementing bilingual medium of instruction from Standard 1 itself so that children have a choice. The people from lower socio-economic background are also demanding for English education but since most of the Government schools do not provide it, they are deprived of it. Some of them take loans and later find themselves under huge debts for wanting to educate their children in private English medium schools. Ilaiah asserts that to change this situation, the private schools should be nationalized (Ilaiah, 2008). He believes that “Over time, English has become the common language of the global science and technology market and the overall economy” (Ilaiah, 2007) and thus it should be the fundamental right of every child to receive quality English medium education. I find his position similar to Delpit’s because he also never opposes the importance of mother tongue but keeps stressing on English education for success.

In an article titled “Why Dalits Want English”, Gail Omvedt (2006) explains the reasons for which Dalits look up to English as the instrument to get freedom from discrimination. The Hindu scriptures like Vedas and Upanishads were written in Sanskrit and were used by the upper castes to oppress the Shudras. With Macaulay’s minute, they realized that English can be a language which will not be Sanskritized and that they can use it to express themselves as they want. Their vernacular was looked down at by the upper castes but English will not be. Ilaiah also says that English education will open doors of higher education and employment for the Dalits which were inaccessible to them because of lack of English education. Jotirao Phule, a Dalit social reformer too emphasized higher education for Dalits in mother tongue as well as in English so that they can get rid of the Brahmin dominated indigenous school which discriminated the Shudras and Ati-shudras at every step from education to employment opportunities. He maintained that teachers in the schools for Dalits should be from their community itself because they will better understand their needs and problems (J. Phule, personal communication, October 19, 1882).

To summarize, both Delpit and Ilaiah believe in equal and quality English education for the Black and Dalits respectively. While Delpit puts a lot of emphasis on teacher’s role in learning outcomes of children from oppressed section, Ilaiah says that the State should provide quality education to the Dalits just as other dominant sections of the society receive. Delpit talks in detail about the methods which can be helpful to the Black children in learning at the same pace with other children and says that no particular approach (skills-oriented or process-oriented) can alone be the best way and that teachers should integrate a number of innovative methods in teaching. Both the writers assert that there should be a balance between the mother tongue and English to be used as medium of instruction. Children should be encouraged to value their own culture and language while learning English to progress in the practical world where (fortunately or unfortunately) English has become essential.

As I look at it, the fundamental aims of a school I establish will be as follows:

• To use education as a means to end the discrimination based on caste, class, race, religion, gender and any other aspect of society which draws line between people.

• To provide children with various options with respect to subjects, medium of instruction, learning methods, etc so that they can explore and choose what is best for them.

• To enable children to be creative and use their imagination in learning and constructing knowledge.

• To instill in them respect for other cultures, for their own culture; to work together as a team with children from different socio-economic backgrounds.

• To make them aware of the importance of clean and unpolluted environment and encourage them to protect it.

• To discover and nurture the skills of every child through various curricular and co-curricular activities.

I believe that all children whether from upper caste or otherwise should know how the society works, how discrimination separates people from people in the same society, how they need to fight for equality and justice. This is important because only when the children know the reality and understand what is and what ought to be, will they start working together towards the change. Children do not have prejudices and sense of ‘mine’ and ‘others’ like adults have. This is why their minds can be moulded in the right shape in schools. Schools should encourage children from different castes, class and religions to study together and not let them realize these differences. Teachers should be like a facilitator who will guide the children whenever needed and will allow them to construct knowledge as per their skills and experiences. The medium of instruction will be bilingual from the first grade itself so that children have choice between their mother tongue and English and they are not forced to learn any other language (Hindi or the respective State language) unless they want. Play-way method of teaching and learning where students learn from their experiences that they get while engaged in school activities or at home will be used so that students can question and find answers to them by themselves. Local handicraft skills will be taught especially to the tribal children so that their art and culture is preserved and spread in the society. This may also help the poor children in supporting their families financially because dropping out from school for earning can also be reduced through this method.