By: S. C. Sarkar, a Lecturer of Education in Government Training College, Hooghly, West Bangle

Now-a-days people have become extremely cautions not to say the ‘aim’ of education. Knowing full well that there are too many aims of education, they like to tide over the difficulty by using word ‘aims’ in the plural number. That is so far so good; but that recognition of the multiplicity alone dose not improve the position to the extent of reconciling the conflicting aims of education that have emerged in course of time.

As the societies were better organized by conforming to their heritage and/or by incorporating non-indigenous skills, and/or by inventing newer techniques of activities, the aim of the societies began to spread out in different directions. The different classes in the same society were particularly concerned with the efficiency of their respective avocation, regardless of the fact whether the classes maintained fluidity among themselves or became hardened into castes as in India.

With the introduction of the school as a social agency exclusively entrusted with the task of training up children belonging to the different classes in a symmetric way, the formulation of the aims of education in clear,  unambiguous terms become a pre condition of sound education. The different educational systems with their different aims that were successively reared up and than demolished from the days of early Sparta and Athens to the recent period of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy- bear an eloquent testimony to this relationship of unanimity between the state policies and the aims of educations, controlled by them. We, in India, witnessed before our eyes a hand-and-glove relationship between the policy of British Imperialism and the prevalent system of education continuing unaffected till Independence in spite of severe public criticism for years and decades on end. The slight changes that were noticed in the closing years of the British rule were effected by the ideologies of the majority parties of the respective provinces, the over all structure remaining as before.

Yet, no wonder that the land of India, whose culture was rooted in the forest homes of remote past, should propound excellent aims of education side by side with the philosophies of life. The Vedic Rishis enunciated education as ‘sa vidya ya bimuktaye’ i.e. education is that which leads to the liberation of the soul (spirit) from bondage to gross matter. Supported by modern science, and philosophies based on the theory of evolution, this definition of education holds still today.

In the Western world, people gave thought to the aims of education according to their needs from the very early times, although none of this aims could be accepted as the universal aim of education for all times to come. In the views of the later educationists under changed circumstance, most of them were considered as either partial or perfunctory in spite of the fact that all of them, taken together, would range from heaven to earth, leaving no aspects of individual or social life untouched. To begin with the early Greeks, a ruthless from of socialism was noted in Sparta, where the aim of education was ‘a hardly mind in a hardly body’, while the Athenian aim of education was ‘a beautiful mind in a beautiful body.’

Loyola’s aim was “Ad Majorem Dei Glorium” i.e. “to the greater glory of God”, while Comenius’ may be given as ‘wisdom, virtue and piety’ along with a democratic tendency. John Milton’s aim could be understood from his definition of education in these terms: “I call therefore, a complete and generous education that which fits a man to perform justly, skillfully and magnanimously all this offices both private and public of peace and war.” John Lock was both a disciplinarian and individualist in outlook and his aim of education was to produce a perfect gentleman refined in tastes, manners and morals.

We have briefly discussed the outstanding aims of education formulated in the East and the West by eminent persons or under auspices of certain states. Some of them that received state patronage were pursed in a wide scale for some time, some remained on the level of private enterprise and the rest were purely theoretical aims influencing education indirectly. Although confusing at first sight, most of them converge on all or some of these three –God, self and society. The formulation of the aims in clear terms, however important in itself, is not everything. There are obstacles like popular assumptions, half-hearted assertion and simultaneous pulls from different directions that often stand in the way of aims being satisfactorily implemented. We may try to understand the position by pointed references to our present situation in India.

There are more than 1000 B-schools running MBA programme in India and a huge number of aspirants are studying management education. Management education was first introduced in early 1960s. At that time, only two institutes had introduced that course before other did that. They were Indian Institute of Management (IIM) in Calcutta (IIMC) and Ahmadabad (IIMA).   A number of Institutes came up with Masters in Business Administration (MBA) programme and the last two decades witnessed a mushrooming growth in B-Schools. But the quality of all such B-school is not up to the international standard as such. Naturally, students with good marks are always searching for the better from the best.

 The B- Schools are generally set up by the Government Universities and other private corporate houses. The reason, why all of them are not good is quite understandable. Various national and international business journals regularly give a rating to each Management Institute. These rankings aim at comparing the B – Schools on a number of parameters such as based on the infrastructure they have, the curriculum they follow and the opportunity of interactions between big corporate houses and students they can provide, not to forget the faculty profile and thereby express views on the standing of respective institutes.

 International journals like US News, Wall Street Journal and Forbes are some of the top agencies that participate in this process. They conduct surveys every year in association with various research agencies. The pass-outs   from higher ranked institutes get the best offers with fat pay packages by any standard in home and abroad in the field of their expertise –be it consultancy, marketing or human resource and .

So the concept of ranking is very important for both the institution and the MBA aspirants.  They must be careful in selecting their institute. A particular institute is getting two or three ranking by different journals. It happens not only in India but in US also. Some prominent management institutes of US like Harvard Business School and Wharton Business School have rejected such kind of ranking systems. They just share the Database of their previous students. They record all the data regarding their placement, business and companies.  A student can easily find that few institutes show consistency in the ranking game. A candidate should judge the details of such institutes. Some private management institutes show the photograph of their alumni in their advertisements and prospectus. These data should not be taken as a parameter for the Institute’s ranking. Apart from that, library facilities, computer labs, swimming pool, modern gym, Wi-Fi Zone, internet connection facility in every room, air conditioned hostels are common features of such institutes. Some are giving free laptops to their newcomers.  As a MBA aspirant you should have to look at the methodology of the survey on the basis of which the ranking is given. The points to be noted are the academic faculties, the physical infrastructure, the placement performance etc. Hence, An MBA aspirants should use this information as one of the vital input in their decision-making process rather than being solely guided by it.

Homeschooling is defined by Preiss (1989) as “the educational alternative in which parents/guardians assume the primary responsibility for the education of their children.” This Digest will offer some background information on homeschooling and discuss conflicting viewpoints culled from research on the socialization of home-schooled children.

RAPIDLY ESCALATING NUMBERS

While a Department of Education study in 1990-91 concluded that between 250,000 and 300,000 school-age children were being educated at home, “USA Today” recently cited the Home School Legal Defense Association figures for 1994 as between 750,000 and 1 million–up from only 15,000 in the early ’80s (Thomas, 1994). What is the reason for this explosion?

Mayberry (1991) pinpoints the gradual development of the modern state and public education as arenas which attempt to legitimate themselves by embodying the ideologies of many different public segments. She argues that by considering other agencies of socialization (in this case, the church or the family) as arenas which embody ideologies in contradiction to those transmitted by state institutions, the “context surrounding parental choice to home educate gains clearer focus.” She stresses that “…the decision to home school (or seek other forms of privatized education) represents a political response by people who perceive a threat in the current organization and content of public education.” Thus, the homeschooling movement is directly linked to the State’s struggle to balance contradictory imperatives (Mayberry, 1991).

BACKGROUND AND PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES

For historical background on homeschooling in America, both Bliss (1989) and Aiex (1994) provide enlightening information. Preiss (1989) offers a concise treatment of the legal aspects of homeschooling.

With the tremendous growth in numbers of the home schooled, there has been a corresponding growth in the market for homeschooling information–indeed, there are now myriad newsletters and books aimed at parents who home school, as well as at least one scholarly newsletter, “Home School Researcher.” According to Preiss (1989), “In 1987, in one home-schooling catalog alone, over 300 suppliers of home-schooling materials are listed.” With the explosion in homeschooling during the past few years, one can only imagine how large the network of professional suppliers of materials is by now.

The granddaddy of all the providers of courses for home study is the venerable Calvert School of Baltimore, which, for many years, was almost the only institution which offered correspondence courses below college level. It was founded in 1906 and has enrolled, through the years, upwards of 360,000 students in its home instruction courses. It has, of course, been joined by other entities in the past decade.

WHY PARENTS HOME SCHOOL

Parents home school for a wide variety of reasons–for example, many parents still live in areas where schools are not readily available (a number of rural areas and some parts of Alaska come to mind), and many parents are anxious about the physical well being of their children in an increasingly more violent school setting. Still others simply feel that they can give their children a better education at home. According to Mayberry (1991), however, two groups of parents home school primarily for ideological reasons:

• deeply religious parents
• “New Age” parents.

Mayberry surveyed 1600 Oregon families who home schooled, receiving a 35% response rate to her questions. Their responses led her to conclude that the two groups cited perceived homeschooling as an activity that provided them a way to reproduce their “way-of-life” by controlling the content of their children’s education. She reports: “…the meanings and values embodied in public education were not the ones that these parents wanted articulated to their children” (Mayberry, 1991).

SOCIALIZATION OF CHILDREN

Does the research show any clear-cut advantages or disadvantages to homeschooling, in relation to the social and emotional development of children schooled at home? Does the home-schooled youngster do as well in measures of interpersonal skills and communication skills as the conventionally schooled child?

The stereotypical home-schooled child is often portrayed as being shy, passive, and lethargic because of his/her isolation from the normal socialization found in formal schooling. Critics further allege that the self-concept of the home-schooled child suffers from lack of exposure to a more conventional environment (Stough, 1992).

Another socialization-related accusation faced by home educators is that of overprotecting their children from the real world. If this is true, however, at least one researcher (Bliss, 1989) does not consider this to be a serious problem. She argues that “Protection during early, developmental years for purposes of nurturing and growth is evident in many arenas: plant, animal, and aquatic. Why should it be considered wrong or bad in the most vital arena, human development?”

Stough (1992),looking particularly at socialization, compared 30 home-schooling families and 32 conventionally schooling families, families with children 7-14 years of age. According to the findings, children who were schooled at home “gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society…at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children.” The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that “insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children.”

This echoes the findings of Taylor (1987). Using one of the best validated self-concept scales available, Taylor’s random sampling of home-schooled children (45,000) found that half of these children scored at or above the 91st percentile–47% higher than the average, conventionally schooled child. He concludes: “Since self concept is considered to be a basic dynamic of positive sociability, this answers the often heard skepticism suggesting that home schoolers are inferior in socialization” (Taylor, 1987).

From the findings of these two studies, it would appear that the concerns expressed by teachers, administrators, and legislators about socialization and homeschooling might be unfounded. Indeed, Bliss (1989) contends that it is in the formal educational system’s setting that children first experience negative socialization, conformity, and peer pressure. According to her, “This is a setting of large groups, segmented by age, with a variation of authority figures…the individual, with his/her developmental needs, becomes overpowered by the expectations and demand of others–equal in age and equally developmentally needy.”

Webb (1989), one of the few researchers who has examined aspects of the adult lives of wholly or partly home-educated people, found that all who had attempted higher education were successful and that their socialization was often better than that of their schooled peers.

MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED

At this point, more research on homeschooling is necessary–what we have is inconclusive about many of its aspects. Although more and deeper studies are certainly called for, the population to be studied is not readily accessible to researchers. And the types of research that can be done are still limited to case studies of families or to surveys of self- reports by participants.

Notably, the success or failure of the homeschooling experience depends inevitably on the success or failure of the family’s interpersonal relationships. Homeschooling is a complex issue and represents a tremendous commitment on the part of the parents–in most cases, the father must function as the sole breadwinner, and the mother must spend most of her time instructing her children.

For now, we will let Preiss (1989) have the last word. She says: “Because homeschooling contains so many diverse and changing factors, each family situation is unique. Yet there exists within the home-schooling community a sense of unity which transcends ideological, political, and religious concerns. That unity lies in the parents’ commitment to the education of their children, whose welfare is their primary concern.”

References

The incidence of multiple births has increased dramatically in the past two decades. The birth rate for twins, who constitute the most common kind of multiple births, increased 42% from 1980 to 1994 (Lytton, Singh, & Gallagher, 1995). Given this trend, it seems reasonable to assume that many teachers will have twins and other multiple siblings in their classes at some point in their classroom careers.
To a large extent, the available research on twins stems from a long tradition of studies focused on the nature-nurture debates. These studies look at twins reared together and apart and attempt to ascertain the relative influence of genetic and environmental influences on personality development. Research on the effects of twins’ separation in school and other practical questions is as yet very limited. Nevertheless, difficult decisions about their education have to be made by school districts, principals, and teachers while new research is awaited. This Digest offers some pointers for educators facing the challenges of educating multiples.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF TWINS AND OTHER MULTIPLES
There are two basic types of twins and other multiples. Identical twins are defined as monozygotic because they are the result of the split of a single fertilized ovum. Dizygotic twins, usually referred to as fraternal twins, are the result of the fertilization of two separate ova, as in other siblings born years apart. There are four types of identical twins, depending upon how early in the development of the ovum its division occurs. The earlier in the division, the more alike the individuals are likely to be physically. In the case of other multiples, as for example in the case of triplets, two of the three may be identical, but more typically all three are as different as any other three siblings.

These variations in the extent to which siblings from the same pregnancy resemble each other suggest that teachers may want to keep in mind that most multiples are as unique as any other set of siblings, although their psychosocial situation differs from that of singletons. Identical twins will be more behaviorally alike on average than fraternal twins. It is also the case that many multiple- birth children are born prematurely and have low birth weight. Many of the same kinds of problems typical of single premature low birth weight children will be typical of premature twins. However, for parents of multiples, even if they are not subject to the strains related to the risks of prematurity, the stresses and strains of the early care of multiples are substantial and appear to have some short-term effects on the children’s development (Lytton, Singh, & Gallagher, 1995). Because twins are the most typical type of multiples, that term is used in the discussion below, although much of the discussion applies equally to other multiple-birth siblings.

SEPARATING TWINS IN SCHOOL
One of the most frequently asked questions by preschool and elementary teachers and principals is whether the classroom separation of multiples should be encouraged. Dreyer (1991) and Brodkin (1997) point out that many schools and preschool programs have a fixed policy of separating twins. In other schools, however, the decision may be left to the principal or to the teachers.

Is it necessary for schools and preschool programs to have a strict policy about separating twins? Dreyer concludes her discussion of what little research is available on this question by stating that “Twins feel that the best policy is no policy at all” (Dreyer, 1991, p. 6). Similarly, most parents seem to feel that such decisions should be determined on a case-by-case basis and that a rigid policy should be avoided.

Even in very small preschools and elementary schools that have only one class per age group, teachers often wonder if they should encourage the twins to engage in separate activities, participate in different learning center activities, sit at different tables for meals, and team up with other peers.

MAKING SEPARATION DECISIONS
The Parents of Multiple Births Association, Inc., of Canada provides a list of possible circumstances to be considered when making a decision about separation (Dreyer, 1991, p. 11). Included in this list are questions such as whether the twins’ “togetherness” might hinder the social development of one or both. Thus, parents and the teacher might ask whether, by about the age of 5, each of the twins is capable of initiating and maintaining satisfying relationships with nonsibling peers. If the answer is “yes,” then separation would not be warranted. If the answer is “no,” then separation, perhaps for part of the day, might be attempted on an experimental basis. Separation may also be considered under the following circumstances:

• Classmates engage in frequent comparisons of the pair, and the comparisons provoke negative feelings in either twin. Constant comparison of twins is one of the greatest sources of distress to twins and one of the most difficult things for parents and teachers to resist. Although parents, and even teachers, often compare different-age siblings, the fact that the twins are the same age as well as frequently of the same gender considerably heightens the temptation to draw comparisons. Even at the preschool age, twins are likely to be aware of such comparisons and may become more competitive than other siblings. Most twins ultimately weather school situations successfully, but if one of the multiples typically comes out on the poorer end of these comparisons, a pattern of discouragement may develop and could lead to a pattern of “learned helplessness” (Burhans & Dweck, 1995).
• There is no evidence that twins are more disruptive than non-twins. However, if disruptions do occur and standard procedures for handling disruptive behavior fail to alleviate the pattern, separation might be one course of action to consider.
• A female twin “over-mothers” her male co-twin. In the case of fraternal opposite-sex twins, females tend to be the more dominant of the two and more critical of their twin brothers, who “appreciated their twin sister’s guidance but felt somewhat threatened by their ’superiority’” (Dreyer, 1991, p. 3).
• Many twins develop a pattern of helping each other through both academic and social predicaments. Educators might want to consider how separation will affect twins who are accustomed to helping each other. Teachers might observe the twins closely in the classroom to ensure that one twin does not help the other excessively, or that the one being helped does not become too dependent on the other. In the case of preschoolers, perhaps the best advice is to make the separation gradual, if it is done at all.

There are other situations in which separation might be a poor or untimely decision. For example, if the pair is undergoing particular stresses within the family, or if there are health concerns for one or both twins, separation may place unnecessary stress on twins.

In the case of school-age twins, it is a good idea to check their own preferences about separation. Although their feelings on the issue should be considered, these feelings should be put in a larger perspective of the long-term development of each member of the multiple sibling group.

Placement decisions should also take into account the views of parents. Some parents will have strong feelings on the matter (Segal & Russell, 1992). However, it is a good idea to keep in mind that parents may not be fully aware of how their children behave in the classroom environment. If parents disagree on the best course of action, teachers may want to listen carefully to each, make suggestions for them to consider, invite them to observe their children in the classroom, and suggest a short-term experiment of separating or keeping the twins together. During that time, the twins can be closely observed and evaluated by teachers and parents. In this way, the school personnel and the parents can address the issue as a team focused on the long-term best interests of the children.

LOOK ALIKES
Ideally, as suggested by guidelines for the education of multiple birth children recently issued by the National Organization of Mothers of Twins Club, Inc. (1998), educators should learn to recognize each child in a set of multiples without resorting to extraordinary measures, such as requiring identical twins to wear name tags, different color clothes, or different hair styles. However, for teachers struggling with large classes, this ideal may take much time and effort to achieve. In the case of twins who look very much alike, and who often behave alike, a teacher’s inability to distinguish between the twins and to use the correct name of the child may be a source of stress for the children and the teacher. It may be preferable to consult the parents about the possibility of helping the teacher to make the correct identification by dressing the twins differently, giving them different haircuts or shirt colors, or providing other consistently different patterns in their appearance. Speaking as a twin, the experience of being called by the other’s name can be very annoying!

Resources