September 26, 2016 at 8:11 am #154157
What we teach, how we teach, and why we teach?
While, Shakespeare is an anachronism in modern education. Are we not to come to consciousness to the dialogue on the curriculum? The curriculum in Bhutan is not based on the dialogue or the trilogue and this can put the nation to risk. Each one of us can be made to contribute for the curriculum and not just few makers of the curriculum. What the nation decides on the school curriculum has to be decision made based on clinical and industrial model (Ornstein,A.C & Hunkins,F.P, 1988) and not just cheery picking of the rhetoric administrator, politicians and few bureaucrats. Today by studying the job market, the curriculum made by the schools administrators and the colleges stated defunct. We do not need the state of the arts curriculum with the heritage. We are looking for a realistic curriculum based on the Bhutanese experiences. The west, not being scrutinized, will produce waste.
The earlier model which was a clinical model based on to recruit the people in the civil service of Bhutan is a fairy tale. It served its purpose and today Bhutan stands on sovereignty because of that curriculum to support the human resources that time. The civil service commission of Bhutan does absorb very minimal in its civil service. The superannuation too is at a very small rate of attrition.
The earlier recruitment of clinical model has to change with the time and there is a need to understand the industrial model of it or it is OK to have a blend of two. The curriculum as today (Michael Rutland, 2016, 18th September, BBS) is imprisoning the learners. The new curriculum hopes to address the realities of life in Bhutan and not just the memory and virtual testing of the students. Where are the series of Druk readers, Druk &Drukpa and Druk workbook of David Horsburgh (1923-1984) who introduced a variety of learning approaches; creative methods getting on to activity based learning?. It gave the meaning and Bhutan stood its solidarity with Drukpa foundation.
Many of us could have been one of the students studying his readers and workbook?. Will there be possibilities to see this light of readers in the 21st century way instead of Shakespeare resurrecting after George Haley (Canadian) and his team in Bhutan’s crucification in favor on the Silken Knots decision. The power enshrined in education curriculum makers in Bhutan should not just be a administrative domination based on sophism. If Your Excellency’s initiative based the curriculum making, involving people at the grass root, at the bureaucratic and the executive. Chencho and Namgay Phuntsho (BBS, 23rd September) made their role clear as the school principals in the instructional leaders but still the bottom energies need to be inclusive. The Royal University Colleges could have its role, as later they are to be taken on the board. You’re Excellency, Minister envisioning role need to take different stakeholder. Your curriculum initiative should reflect exactly your Excellency’s journal articles, Managers in Pygmalion roles (Wangchuk, 2005 pp. Zenchong,1) for transformation of learner consciously: “The secret to this powerful intelligence rests in the ability of the owner to communicate his expectations to the horse.”
The stereotype Shakespearean of Bhutan
Though Shakespeare lived for all ages as stated, can we think of the choice that we must live with the time as well? Our learning need not be the repetition of yesterday. Should we be mandate that tomorrow has to be exactly today? Shakespeare is an old belief which needed to by goodbye.
Just because many of us studied and memorized Shakespeare, we want to initiate the same learning in our students. A recent phenomenon that Bhutanese school curriculum to feature Bhutanese English Curriculum with Shakespeare drama is mixed feeling. And it is with reason that we do not need to live with archived language. Shakespeare is just an English student’s major entitlement and it is denounced as being dull, reductive and excessively bureaucratic.
In 1980’s, all Bhutanese students in class X and XII, regardless of ability, have had to study Shakespeare’s plays: Merchant of Venice; Julia Caesar; As you like it; Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth as English II, the literature. That was board examination based by the Indian Certificate Examination. It was by some educators considered very controversial for political and educational. Shakespeare inducts students into a certain set of value representing beliefs that are largely conservative and traditional which fit to the context of GNH values.
Shakespeare may simply be inappropriate for some students and to make such study compulsory for 16 to 17 year to risk permanently, alienating a large number of children from the pleasurable understanding of classical literary works. The sense was that Shakespeare could be divisive, even damaging for developing mind. It is depicted that it is denying children access to other riches of English literature.
Many of the old guards claim, Shakespearean’s dramas are supporters of heritage and tradition. The other side, we have the teachers and academics to dismantle the institution of Shakespeare literature from the inside and were done. Even in London, Students exposed to Shakespearean texts and ideas are, to some degree, quite alien and what about the Bhutanese children in the language of the Shakespearean?
Remember the crushing boredom experienced reading “Midsummer Night Dream” in a mumbled monotone, while English teacher dozed in her chair occasionally waking up to summarize in Bhutanese English. Many would admit that they have never considered teaching Shakespeare. It has nothing to do with the relevance of the today world. Let us leave to the college who are majoring in English. Lastly on having reinvented to get Shakespeare to the teaching and learning English, I would just cite from Shakespeare’s: The Merry Wives of Windsor that Shakespeare’s work is our oyster in 1980’s and early 1990’s and not for cyber child of today’s Bhutan
Uzorong YoungbaApril 26, 2017 at 6:19 pm #160121
I STRONGLY support your feeling. People talk that the modern children are “DIGITAL CHILDREN” yet they are forced to look back at the old fashion. They are forced to repeat the old. If so where are those slogans gone? The slogan of “TRANSFORMATIC PEDAGOGY” “THE CREATIVITY” “NEW STRATEGY” Being Bhutanese, when we find ourselves difficult to learn Bhutanese, why this insistence for old curriculum. booka of Shakespeare can be as supplementary reader or can be read during leisure time…October 17, 2017 at 8:09 am #165715
Thanks for all the stuffs.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.