In our review of EDUCATION COMMISSION, 1964-66, we shall assess EDUCATION COMMISSION, 1964-66
What is right, what is not right in the present context, which recommendations have been applied so far in the contemporary Education System.
INTRODUCTION ABOUT EDUCATION COMMISSION 1964-66
The Education Commission under the Chairmanship of Dr.D.S. Kothari, the then Chairman, University Grants Commission, began its task on October 2,1964. It consisted of sixteen members, eleven being Indians and five foreign experts. In addition, the Commission had the benefit of discussion with a number of internationally known consultants in the educational as well as scientific field.
The main task of the Commission was to advise the Government on the national pattern of education and on the general policies for the development of education at all stages-ranging from the primary to post-graduate stage and in all its aspects besides examining a host of educational problems in their social and economic context. Government Resolution was made for setting up the Education Commission on July 14, 1964. The Commission submitted its report to the Government on June 29,1966. It was laid on the Table of the House on August 29, 1966.
In the overall review of Education Commission 1964-1966, following main features come out as given below:
(i) Introduction of work-experience which includes manual work, production experience, etc. and social service as integral part of general education at more or less all level of education.
(ii) Stress on moral education and inculcation of a sense of social responsibility. Schools should recognise their responsibility in facilitating the transition of youth from the work of school to the world of work and life.
(iii) Vocationalization of secondary education.
(iv) strengthening of the centres of advance study and setting up of a small number of major universities which would aim at achieving highest international standards.
(v) Special emphasis on the training and quality of teachers for schools
(vi) Education for agriculture and research in agriculture and allied sciences should be given a high priority in the scheme of educational reconstruction. Energetic and imaginative steps are required to draw a reasonable proportion of talent to go in for advance study and research in agriculture science.
(vii) Development of quality or pace-setting institutions at all stages and in all sectors.
The Commission observed that mother-tongue had a pre-eminent claim as the medium of education at the school and college stages. Moreover, the medium of education in school and higher education should generally be the same. The regional languages should, therefore, be adopted as the media of education in higher education.
The Commission further observed that the public demand for secondary and higher education had increased and would continue to increase in future. It was, therefore, necessary to adopt a policy of selective admissions to higher secondary and university education in order to bridge the gap between the public demand and available facilities.
The Commission was of the view that the social segregation in schools should be eliminated by the adoption of the neighbourhood social concept at the lower primary stage under which all children in the neighbourhood will be required to attend the school in the locality.
In view of the important rote of education in the national development and in building up a truly democratic society the Government considered it necessary to survey and examine the entire field of education in order to realise a well balanced, integrated and adequate system of national education capable of making a powerful contribution to all aspects of national life. To achieve these objectives speedily, the Government of India in October 1964, set up an Education Commission, under Resolution of July 14, 1964.
The Commission in particular was to advise the Government on the national pattern of education and on the general policies for the Development of education at all stages-ranging from the primary to post-graduate stage and in all its aspects besides examining a host of educational problems in their social and economic context. The Commission was, however, not to examine legal and medical education.
University Grants Commission, consisted of sixteen members, eleven being Indians and five foreign experts. In addition, the Commission had the benefit of discussion with and advice of a number of internationally known consultants in the educational as well as scientific field. The Commission began its task on October 2, 1964, and submitted its report on June 29, 1966 to the Union Education Minister.
MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATION COMMISSION
1. PROFESSOR D. S. KOTHARI, Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
3. MR. H. L. ELVIN, Director, Institute of Education, University of London, London.
4. SHRI R. A. GOPALASWAMI, Director, Institute of Applied Manpower Research. New Delhi (since retired).
5. PROFESSOR SADATOSHI IHARA, School of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo.
6. DR. V. S. JHA, formerly Director of the Comonwealth Education Liaison Unit, London.
7. SHRI P. N. KIRPAL, Educational Adviser and Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Education, New Delhi.
8. PROFESSOR M. V. MATHUR, Professor of Economics and Public Administration, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur (now Vice-Chancellor, Rajasthan University).
9. DR. B. P. PAL, Director, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi (now Director-General, and Vice-President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture).
10. KUMARI S. PANANDIKAR, Head of the Department of Education, Karnatak 'University, Dharwar (since retired).
11. PROFESSOR ROGER REVELLE, Director, Centre for Population Studies, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA.
12. DR. K. G. SAIYIDAIN, former Educational Adviser to the Government of India (now Director, Asian Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi).
13. DR. T. SEN, Vice-Chancellor, Jadavpur University, Calcutta.
14. PROFESSOR S. A. SHUMOVSKY, Director, Methodological Division, Ministry of Higher and Special Secondary Education, RSFSR, and Professor of Physics, Moscow University, Moscow.
15. M. JEAN THOMAS, Inspector-General of Education, France, and formerly Assistant Director-General of UNESCO, Paris.
16. SHRI J. P. NAIK, Head of the Department of Educational Planning, Administration and Finance, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Poona.
17. MR. J. F. MCDOUGALL, Assistant Director, Department of School and Higher Education, UNESCO, Paris.