The Kothari Commission was an ad hoc commission set up by the Government of India in 1964 to examine all aspects of the educational sector in India, to develop a general pattern of education, and to recommend guidelines and policies for the development of education in India. It was chaired by Daulat Singh Kothari, then chairman of the University Grants Commission. The commission submitted its report on 29 June 1966 to M.C. Chagla, the then minister of education.
Some of the highlights of the Kothari Commission are:
It was the first commission with comprehensive terms of reference on education in India, post-independence.
It had a core group of 20 members, a panel of 20 overseas consultants, and 19 working groups or task forces.
It interviewed 9000 people who were working as scholars, educators and scientists in a span of 21 months.
It gave 23 recommendations to revamp the education system in India, covering various aspects such as aims, methods, curriculum, assessment, equity, quality, vocationalization, higher education, research, etc.
Some of its notable recommendations were: provision of free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years; promotion of multilingualism and Indian languages; introduction of three language formula; reform of board exams; establishment of National Assessment Centre (PARAKH); creation of Gender Inclusion Fund and Special Education Zones; increase of Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education to 50%; introduction of holistic and multidisciplinary education with multiple entry/exit options; establishment of Academic Bank of Credit; setting up of Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) and National Research Foundation (NRF); and encouragement of internationalization of education.
Implementation of its recommendations by Government :
The government implemented some of the recommendations of the Kothari Commission by including them under the National Policy on Education (NPE) of 1968 and 1986. Some of them are as follows:
Adoption of 10+2+3 years pattern of educational structure.
Promotion of three language formula and development of Indian languages.
Reform of board exams and introduction of internal assessment.
Establishment of National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs).
Expansion of vocational and technical education to meet the growing needs of the economy.
Improvement of teacher education and training.
Encouragement of adult and non-formal education.
However, some of the recommendations such as provision of free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14, establishment of a national system of education to ensure uniformity in standards and quality, creation of Common School System (CSS), increase of government expenditure on education to 6%, etc. were not fully implemented due to various reasons such as lack of political will, financial constraints, administrative hurdles, social resistance, etc.
Public Reactions on Kothari Commission :
The Kothari Commission was received by the public with mixed reactions. Some of the positive responses were:
The commission was appreciated for its comprehensive and visionary approach to education, covering various aspects such as aims, methods, curriculum, assessment, equity, quality, vocationalisation, higher education, research, etc.12.
The commission was praised for its emphasis on social and national integration, promotion of multilingualism and Indian languages, reform of board exams, establishment of National Assessment Centre (PARAKH), creation of Gender Inclusion Fund and Special Education Zones, etc.12.
The commission was lauded for its proposal of a Common School System (CSS) that would help build a public system involving schools of equitable structures and quality.
Some of the negative responses were:
The commission was criticized for its lack of clarity and coherence on some of the issues such as the three language formula, the role of private sector in education, the relationship between central and state governments in education planning and administration, etc.
The commission was challenged for its elitist and urban bias, neglecting the realities and needs of rural and marginalized communities.
The commission was opposed for its recommendation of 6% of government expenditure on education, which was seen as unrealistic and unaffordable by some sections.
Comments