Educational planning should aim at meeting the educational needs
of the entire population of all age group. While the traditional structure of
education as a three layer hierarchy from the primary stage to the university
represents the core, we should not overlook the periphery which is equally
important. Under modern conditions, workers need to rewind, or renew their
enthusiasm, or strike out in a new direction, or improve their skills as much
as any university professor. The retired and the age have their needs as well.
Educational planning, in their words, should take care of the needs of
everyone.
Our structures of education have been built up on the
assumption that there is a terminal point to education. This basic defect has
become all the more harmful today. A UNESCO report entitled ‘learning to Be’
prepared by Edgar Faure and others in 1973 asserts that the education of
children must prepare the future adult for various forms of self – learning. A
viable education system of the future should consist of modules with different
kinds of functions serving a diversity of constituents. And performance, not
the period of study, should be the basis for credentials. The writing is
already on the wall.
In view of the fact that the significance of a commitment of
lifelong learning and lifetime education is being discussed only in recent years
even in educationally advanced countries, the possibility of the idea becoming
an integral part of educational thinking seems to be a far cry. For, to move in
that direction means such more than some simple rearrangement of the present
organization of education. But a good beginning can be made by developing Open
University programs for older learners of different categories and introducing
extension services in the conventional colleges and schools. Also these
institutions should learn to cooperate with the numerous community
organizations such as libraries. Museums, municipal recreational programs,
health services etc.
Which of the following is
not true in context of the given passage?
Democratic societies from the earliest times have expected
their governments to protect the weak against the strong. No ‘era of good
feeling’ can justify discharging the police force or giving up the idea of
public control over concentrated private wealth. On the other hand, it is
obvious that a spirit of self – denial and moderation on the part of those who
hold economic power will greatly soften the demand for absolute equality. Men
are more interested in freedom and security than in an equal distribution of
wealth. The extent to which Government must interfere with business, therefore,
is not exactly measured by the extent to which economic power is concentrated
into a few hands. The required degree of government interference depends mainly
on whether economic powers are oppressively used, and on the necessity of
keeping economic factors in a tolerable state of balance.
However, with the necessity of meeting all these dangers and
threats to liberty, the powers of government are unavoidably increased,
whichever political party may be in office. The growth of government is a
necessary result of the growth of technology and of the problems that go with
the use of machines and science. Since the government in our nation, must take
on more powers to meet its problems, there is no way to preserve freedom except
by making democracy more powerful.
The growth of government is necessitated to
