ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about compensatory education for culturally deprived children.
In an age when we swear by democracy, the ideal of providing equality of educational opportunity for all is accepted as a part of the democratic process. All societies, barring a few exceptions to the contrary, are characterised by a steady and slow decline of inequality of educational opportunity. But experience suggests that one cannot expect equality of results as a follow-up of equality of educational opportunity.
Among various factors which stand in the way of achieving equal results is the cultural deprivation of a section of the population. Let us consider, for example, the cases of children of backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in India. There may, of course, be many other groups who may be placed in this category.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The characteristic of a culturally deprived child is that his environment is not only poverty-stricken in economic terms but also in cultural terms. “He may have come to school without ever having had his mother sing him the traditional lullabies, and with no knowledge of nursery rhymes, fairy stories, or the folklore of his country”.
In other words, a culturally deprived child does not come to the school with a mind sufficiently enriched by long exposure to intellectual resources in his home and surroundings to respond meaningfully to suggestions.
The cases of culturally deprived children pose problems for the democratic ideal of, equality of opportunity in education. The underlying principle of the ideal of equality of educational opportunity is that the provision of similar educational opportunities for all would give every student an equality of opportunity to fulfill his talents.
But it has become increasingly apparent that “a uniform state educational system would not provide everyone with an equal chance since many would enter and travel through the system with the millstone of cultural deprivation hanging round their necks”. This realisation changed the notion of equality of educational opportunity.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Previously, it was held that the requirements of the ideal of equality of educational opportunity were fulfilled when access to all spheres of education was made freely available to all. Now it is argued that equality of educational opportunity may be said to exist when the levels of attainment of all social groups are similar. That is, emphasis has now shifted from equality of opportunity to equality of results.
The next question is: How to ensure equality of results? It has been suggested that this can be done by compensating for the deprivations and deficiencies of those who are stricken both in economic and cultural terms. It is assumed that such compensatory measures would enable the culturally deprived to take advantage of the opportunities that are freely made available to all.
That is,those who are lagging behind must be given a helping hand in order to enable them to compete on equal terms with those who are not so disadvantageously placed. This is the theory behind the idea of positive or protective discrimination in favour of culturally deprived children. This means additional educational provision for the culturally deprived.
Compensatory educational programmes were undertaken in a big way in the U.S.A. as a part of President Johnson’s war on poverty. Billions of dollars were poured into ‘Operation Head Start’, a massive programme of pre-school education in low-income areas across the entire country.
This programme aimed at providing a stimulating educational environment to the culturally deprived children and at motivating them for making full use of educational opportunities. It is reported that the results have not been encouraging.
In England compensatory education began in the late 1960s in selected areas known as Educational Priorities Areas (EPAs). Programmes of compensatory education were introduced in these areas.
Haralambos observes:
“Though it is difficult to evaluate the results, reports from the EPAs are generally disappointing”.
What are the reasons for the failure of compensatory education programmes in the U.S.A. and in England? It is doubtful as to whether protective discriminatory measures have achieved the expected results in India also. How to account for this?
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It has been argued that instead of concentrating solely on the child inside the educational institution, efforts must be directed toward an improvement of the environment, so that the entire community and families therein may be deeply involved.
“No matter how much you do inside the school, you can make virtually no impact at all without the informed support of the home”. It is suggested that a community school with strong links between the school and the community as a whole should be set up. It is further suggested that parents should be educated to help their children.
The National Adult Education Programme (NAEP), which was launched by the Government of India in the year 1978, aimed at, among other things, educating the adult members of the community in the age-group 15-35, so that they could serve as catalytic agents in stimulating the young to make the best use of educational opportunities made available to them.
Though the idea of compensatory education has its adherents, there are also critics who question the idea and its theoretical basis. The theory of cultural deprivation, the critics argue, is only a smokescreen which conceals the cruel fact of economic deprivation and social inequality. It is held that basically the problem is economic and social and the problem has to be tackled on the economic and social planes.
Compensatory education does not provide any solution to this basic problem. Critics go so far as to say that compensatory education serves as a “diversion from the pursuit of a genuine egalitarian policy”, and that it can never succeed as long as there exists social inequality and economic deprivation. In other words, piecemeal approach must be replaced by a total approach, embracing different aspects of social life.