Why force some children to go through school for 11 years? How do you want them to be shaped by the education system? That is the central question for any education reform. The answer to the above question is directly related to the educational goals we set ourselves. What was the evolution of the goals in education in Bangladeshi society? How have these goals changed as we have moved from a totalitarian to a free society? Have we tried, in the last 30 years, to distance ourselves from communism using the most powerful tool at our disposal, that is, the education system? Have we tried to train free people — mentally-minded — through certain educational experiences provided by the school? I will try to answer these questions in the following paragraphs.

Children education


But before I get into the subject, I need to clarify the following. Can an ordinary citizen, someone who is not an education specialist, evaluate this evolution of education goals? Yes, anyone can evaluate the change at the level of educational goals with a simple glance at a school schedule. Because the change must be seen in the subjects taught. It is enough to look at the subjects, their importance is given the number of hours allocated each week, the content of the subjects, and the way in which that content is taught. What subjects you have in school, how you teach them, this says it all about the educational goals you have set for yourself.

What actually happened in the state education system is the following: instead of preparing the youth for living in the most advanced society, multilateral training, in accordance with socialist ideals, was passed in the school curricula approved by the Ministry educational goals that agree on paper with political change. Goals such as the development of youth in the spirit of tolerance, the ability to behave based on principles and values, cooperation with others, the manifestation of an active and responsible social behavior, appropriate to a changing world ... If you ignore the wooden language present in both formulations, that's all that's been done. Practice and content remained unchanged in classrooms and schools. Changes were made only on paper, in which all inspectors, directors,

The subject in each subject has become rarer and social education has been introduced in primary and secondary schools. A stuffing, obviously, especially in high school. Making civic culture at the age of nine is a bad joke. But things aren't even better in high school. No seventh grader is interested in political institutions, justice, civic engagement, and the media. No 8th grader wants to read about banks and loans. In fact, if you want to disgust some children with these topics, you give them lectures about them at 14 years old. Because, first of all, a student is not interested in these things at the age of 14. Secondly, he is much too busy with the end-of-year exam, with the national assessment, that is, with Bengali and mathematics. In fact, he is not interested in lectures about these things in high school either. Because the way these things are taught through lectures is the most inefficient way to learn something. Lecturing is the most inefficient way to get students to learn something. I do not say it, I do say studies related to learning efficiency.

What other subjects have been introduced? Technological education in high school. Also, a stuffing material also taught through lectures from the department. Social studies were also introduced in high school, in the profile of social studies, in the 12th grade, when they have the baccalaureate on their head. However, the way of teaching is just as inefficient, lectures from the department.

From the fact that you teach mostly the same subjects as 30 years ago, in the same way, with the same weight for subjects in the schedule, only one thing logically follows. The educational goals desired in full communism are still valid today. We want the same kind of people since we train them the same way. Since we teach the same things in the same way. It also follows that all the ministries and state institutions that set these goals consider that the educational goals of communism are just as good for a free society. That the training offered by the communist state education system is just as good and current today. Equally good for preparing young people for a free democratic society.

The whole discussion made by the specialists with the focus on competencies, with the development of some skills, is just empty talk. Just a pretext for some to cover their incompetence with papers. The way things are done in this country. Because in this country you don't check if the workers on a construction site have protective equipment. Check that the owner has all the papers in order. Do not check for emergency exits. Check that all the papers are in order. Don't talk to students at an inspection. Check that the teacher has all the paperwork for the lesson plans and specialization courses. By the way, I never understood the exact role of class inspections. From the way things are done now, it is clear that their purpose is to check how the teacher recites the lesson and what lesson plans he has. It's like he should know the lesson. If you really want to check what an hourly teacher is doing, you can make it much smarter. The quality of the teaching act can be checked much more efficiently indirectly. How do you do that? Discuss with some students the topics studied in that subject. It's important to see how they talk, what they're left with. It is important what the students are left with, not how well the teacher recites the lesson.