Educational planning should aim at meeting the educational needs of the entire population of all age groups. 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 professor. The retired and the aged 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, titled “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 much 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 numerous community organizations such as libraries, museums, municipal recreational programs, health services etc.
Q: Which of the following in not true in context of the given passage?
Educational planning should aim at meeting the educational needs of the entire population of all age groups. 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 professor. The retired and the aged 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, titled “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 much 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 numerous community organizations such as libraries, museums, municipal recreational programs, health services etc.
Q: Integrating the concepts of lifelong learning with educational structure would imply
A great deal of discussion continues as to the real extent
of global environment degradation and its implications. What few people
challenge however is that the renewable natural resources of developing countries
are today subject to stresses of unprecedented magnitude. These pressures are
brought about, in part, by increased population and the quest for an ever
expanding food supply. Because the health, nutrition and general well-being of
the poor majority are directly dependent on the integrity and productivity of
their natural resources, the capability of government to manage them
effectively over the long term becomes of paramount important.
Developing countries are becoming more aware of the ways in
which present and future economic development must built upon a sound and
sustainable natural resource base. Some are looking at our long tradition in
environmental protection and are receptive to U.S. assistance which recognizes
the uniqueness of the social and ecological system in these tropical countries.
Developing countries recognize the need to improve their capability to analyze
issues and their own natural resource management. In February 1981, for
example, AID funded a national Academy of Sciences panel to advise Nepal on its
severe natural resource degradation problems. Some countries such as Senegal,
India, Indonesia and Thailand, are now including conservation concerns in their
economic development planning process.
Because so many governments of developing nations have
recognized the importance of these issues, the need today is not merely one of
raising additional consciousness, but for carefully designed and sharply
focused activities aimed at management regimes that are essential to the
achievement of sustained development.
Q: Some of the developing countries of Asia and Africa have
