The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) announced the class 10 and 12 board exam results on May 13, 2024. As reported by the The Times of India, this year’s pass percentage for class 10 was 93.60%, while the pass percentage for class 12 was 87.98%. For many, this inflated pass percentage would be a matter of pride, but for at least a few, it is a cause for concern. I belong to the latter group. However, this is not a new occurrence; there has been a similar trend in CBSE’s pass percentages for many years. Let me clarify that it’s not the pass percentage itself that bothers me, but rather the monotony of the evaluation process and the examination-oriented schooling system that promotes rote learning over creativity.
The celebration of high pass percentages often masks deeper concerns about the quality of education. While impressive on the surface, these numbers reveal a systemic issue where the emphasis on exam performance eclipses the cultivation of essential skills for lifelong success. In an education system fixated on rote learning and standardized assessments, students may excel in exams but lack critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. This imbalance not only distorts the true purpose of education but also leaves graduates ill-equipped for the complexities of the modern world. As society evolves, so too must our approach to education, prioritizing holistic development over mere academic achievement.
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in India, as the largest governing body for secondary education, wields considerable influence over the schooling system. However, recent discourse surrounding educational practices has brought to light concerns regarding the rigid structure and examination-oriented focus of the CBSE curriculum. This essay highlights the issues plaguing the Indian schooling system, drawing parallels with Ivan Illich’s seminal work Deschooling Society. By examining the systemic issues perpetuated by standardized education and the call for a paradigm shift towards learner-driven approaches, this analysis aims to provoke critical reflection on the fundamental purpose of education and its implications for societal progress and equity.
In 1971, Ivan Illich, an Austrian priest, theologian, and philosopher, penned Deschooling Society, advocating for the liberation of education from institutionalized schooling and the separation of schooling from state control. At the heart of Illich’s critique on the schooling system is the notion that institutionalized education perpetuates dependency and stifles individual autonomy. The CBSE, with its rigid structure and standardized curriculum, epitomizes this institutionalization, relegating students to passive recipients of knowledge rather than active participants in their own learning journey. Illich argues for the dismantling of such systems in Favor of a more decentralized, learner-driven approach that empowers individuals to take control of their education.
The entire Indian schooling system is structured to primarily test students’ memory rather than their comprehension and creativity. Students are often encouraged to memorize notes and regurgitate them during examinations. Starting from class X and XII, students are directed by both teachers and parents to focus on scoring high percentages in board exams. Board percentages have become a new status symbol for parents, teachers, schools, and students alike. Parents boast about it to their relatives and friends, teachers see it as a validation of their subject competency, schools view it as a mark of excellence, and students consider it a gateway to higher education institutions and a means to distinguish themselves among their peers.
However, the implementation of CUET for university admissions has led to a decline in the obsession with achieving high marks in board exams among students. Instead, it has given rise to a new trend: a surge in coaching centres aimed at catering to university entrants. These coaching centres have become lucrative markets where aspirations are transformed into commodities. Unfortunately, only those with the financial means can afford their services, thereby perpetuating socio-economic disparities in access to higher education.
Our school education system put an emphasis on academic achievement which perpetuates a culture of competition and performance anxiety. Illich argues that the pursuit of credentials and qualifications detracts from the intrinsic joy of learning, reducing education to a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Consequently, students are driven by extrinsic motivations rather than a genuine thirst for knowledge.
Enforcing a standardized curriculum across a nation with rich cultural diversity and varied talents is inherently flawed. Such an approach by CBSE undermines the potential of future human resources. While natural resources face depletion from overuse, our nation suffers from a scarcity of adequately nurtured human resources, largely due to the neglect of young minds in educational institutions. We must not forget that the human resource does not comprises the entire population of a country; rather, it only includes the skilled workforce who can contribute. If a significant portion of a nation’s populace receives education through a standardized approach, it inevitably leads to a workforce with homogenized skill sets.
Since its inception, CBSE has portrayed itself solely as an entity responsible for conducting board exams and framing the syllabus for them. The acronym ‘CBSE’ stands for Central Board of Secondary Education. However, it seems that the last letter, ‘E’, in the four-letter acronym represents ‘Examination’ instead of ‘Education.’ This suggests that the board may have conflated education with examination. If this is indeed the case, it reflects a concerning state of affairs for our country’s entire schooling system.
In the words of James P. Pitts, “Illich has beliefs about the undesirability of unilateral communication, but in addition feels that the certification of achievement function played by formal schools has destructive consequences. Illich argues that formal schools hold a monopoly over acceptable learning, resulting in several serious issues within the educational system. Firstly, non-school-certified learning is discouraged and considered illegitimate. Secondly, school performance is seen as the primary pathway to entering society’s occupational structure, particularly in industrialized societies. Thirdly, wealthy individuals tend to benefit more from formal education due to their ability to efficiently utilize schools, which increases societal inequality. Lastly, the increasing market value of formal schooling makes it financially burdensome for nations to provide equal educational opportunities to all citizens.” This critique of formal education resonates with the contemporary schooling system in India as it highlights concerns regarding the system’s emphasis on certification, unequal access, and the growing cost of education.
How can autonomy in education be maintained when the CBSE, as the largest secondary board, sets the guidelines and governs the schooling system? What about the autonomy of teachers and their responsibility in promoting joyful learning? Joy in learning is rooted in the concept of freedom, and if that freedom is restricted, education may lose its intrinsic value, becoming merely a task rather than a fulfilling endeavour. In Deschooling Society, Illich challenges the conventional notion of education as a monopolized institution, arguing for the dismantling of formal schooling systems. He argues that institutionalized education perpetuates inequality, stifles creativity, and fails to address the diverse needs of learners. Drawing from Illich’s insights, it becomes evident that the current schooling system under the CBSE mirrors many of these shortcomings.
It is crucial to recognize that the issues highlighted in the CBSE system are not unique to it alone; similar concerns exist within other educational boards such as ICSE and various other state boards. These boards share the common objective of overseeing and managing the learning process. By singling out CBSE as an example, I merely sought to illustrate that the flaws observed within it are indicative of broader systemic issues. Generally, it is believed that the schooling system prepares aspirants for higher education, but the manner in which it prepares is problematic. Most of the students who somehow manage to get an admission in higher education institutions struggle to retain there because they lack the aptitude needed in higher education.
Illich’s vision of a deschooled society challenges us to rethink the very purpose of education and to envision alternative models that prioritize empowerment, collaboration, and community engagement. The present-day school system in India, with its rigid adherence to outdated pedagogical practices, stands in stark contrast to this vision. To truly transform the Indian education system, we must heed Illich’s call to dismantle existing structures and embrace new approaches that promote creativity, critical thinking, and social justice. The contemporary school system in India has significantly undermined the principle of social justice. A child’s societal status is heavily influenced by the type of school he attends. Illich argues that mere existence of school discourages and disables the poor from taking control of their own learning. Illich’s critique highlights how the current school system perpetuates social inequalities by reinforcing the advantages of those who attend prestigious institutions while hindering the educational opportunities of the disadvantaged. This systemic issue not only impacts individual agency but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and marginalization. To address these concerns, a re-evaluation of the education system is necessary, one that prioritizes equitable access to quality education for all children regardless of socioeconomic background.
It is a misconception that Illich opposed schools, as this is not what he meant when he coined the term ‘Deschooling.’ As D.J. Piveteau (1974) rightly points out, “‘deschooling society’ cannot simply mean closing down individual schools, as there are entire school systems in place. This nuance is crucial. Illich does not oppose the concept of a school itself, founded on principles of free association and motivation. Instead, he aims to dismantle the institutionalized school system, which relies on enforced obligations and compulsion.”
Illich’s perspective on the school system is centred around the idea that it is regressive and manipulative. He believes that for any meaningful change to occur, individuals must first recognize the shortcomings of the current system. This recognition is essential because it motivates people to seek alternatives. According to Illich, as long as individuals are complacent with the existing system, they will not actively pursue alternative approaches to education. Therefore, he emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the need for change as a crucial first step towards finding alternatives to the traditional schooling system.
Illich believes that “universal education through schooling is not feasible. It would be no more feasible if it were attempted by means of alternative institutions built on the style of present schools. Neither new attitudes of teachers toward their pupils nor the proliferation of educational hardware or software (in classroom or bedroom), nor finally the attempt to expand the pedagogue’s responsibility until it engulfs his pupils’ lifetimes will deliver universal education. The current search for new educational funnels must be reversed into the search for their institutional inverse: educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring.” This statement highlights the limitations of traditional schooling and emphasizes the need for a shift towards more dynamic and inclusive educational systems. It suggests that merely expanding existing educational structures or relying on technological advancements will not ensure universal education. Instead, it advocates for the creation of educational webs that empower individuals to learn, share, and care in every aspect of their lives. This implies a broader conceptualization of education beyond classroom settings, focusing on lifelong learning and holistic development. Such a perspective aligns with contemporary discussions on the need for educational reform to meet the diverse needs of learners and prepare them for the complexities of the modern world.
Many people consider Illich an anarchist who challenged the formal school system. For some, his ideas are deemed too radical and utopian, casting doubt on the very concept of ‘Deschooling Society.’ I, too, believe that he was an anarchist and that his ideas were radical. However, history has shown that societies striving for liberation often require the influence of anarchists. Just as France needed an anarchist like Rousseau for its liberation, and India needed Gandhi to free itself from British imperialism, our school system needed an anarchist like Ivan Illich to break free from traditional hegemony.
