What is an Education for-A Crisis of Mind?

NEP 2020 envisions education as the foundation for building an equitable and innovative society. Although it is a comprehensive vision, its full realization is evaluated by its capacity of overcoming significant implementation challenges, especially in governance and equitable access. According to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the primary goal of education in India is to transform the system to an integrated, versatile, multidisciplinary, and aligned to the 21st century needs, and the ultimate objective is to create an equitable and diverse knowledge society. Forgetting the simple answers that involve: “to get a job”, “to learn facts”, a critical analysis of education would reveal that education is an extremely contested terrain of power, ideology, and social vision. We shall conjecture about the purposes of education and consider its conflicting roles in society. Any education should not just be a policy-making, but should be skill based with student orientation to nurture the ecology as well. and It is the predominant narrative in the present day. Schooling is an investment in human resources. It is focused on providing skilled, conforming workers to the economy, innovating, and increasing national competitiveness. They are informed that education is a means of questioning employment and economic mobility. Critiques of this view ask: Are students merely "products" to be fitted to market needs? Does this reduce learning to training?

Depending on the works of Socrates and Rousseau, these views on education are individual development and enlightenment. It focuses on developing the “whole person”, that is, moral reasoning, critical thinking, creativity, and wisdom. It is aimed at individual freedom, self-actualization, and the “good life”.

To democratic theorists such as John Dewey, education is the foundation of a healthy democracy. It gives rise to knowledgeable, active citizens who are able to take part in public life, hold power accountable, ideas and promote social cohesion. In this case, education is a social reproduction of democracy itself. Critics indicate that schools usually prepare passive citizens and nationalistic narratives as opposed to truly critical participation.

Education can be structured to build true agency, educating students to question, and not just to answer. It has the potential to develop the ability to solve problems together, deliberate ethically, and act socially. Actually, poverty has not been conquered by illiteracy but by education. Education is destroying the ecology in the name of development.

Asking "what is education for?" forces us to ask: Who benefits? The answer is never singular. Education is determined by the values and power of the people who control the institutions, the curriculum, and assessment. Truly critical education, nevertheless, renders this conflict visible. It must not only prepare students to perform well within the system, but also to analyze, critique, and transform the system itself. Its ultimate aim, as per this critical perspective, is not adaptation to the world as it is, but the development of the ability to re-imagine and rebuild the world as it ought to be. In order to accomplish this, the policy shifts the focus of content-heavy, rote-learning approaches towards an education that encourages critical thinking, creativity, morals, and practical problem-solving.

In place of these myths, Orr proposes six guiding principles for what education should be for:

1. All Education is Environmental Education: By what is included or excluded, every lesson teaches students they are either part of or apart from the natural world.

2. Mastery of Oneself over Subject Matter: The primary goal is not intellectual command, but the development of wisdom, humility, and self-discipline.

3. Knowledge Carries Responsibility: Learning should be accompanied by awareness of the impact on people, communities, and biosphere.

4. Minimize the "Say-Do" Gap: Education must confront the gap between its proclaimed ideals (e.g., justice, sustainability) and institutional practices.

5. Learning Transcends the Classroom: Real education takes place when we are directly engaged with the living world and community.

6. Improve the Learning Process: Go beyond the passive lectures to the interdisciplinary approaches that educate about interconnectedness.

The main thesis expressed by Orr is that the ecological crisis is a “crisis of mind”. He transfers the failure to a technical know-how to the flawed educational paradigm that teaches domination as well as separation. Critical pedagogy should go beyond education. While thinkers like Freire critique education for social oppression, Orr extends this to ecological oppression. He agrees with Freire in his disdain of the “banking model” of education, instead promoting an educational model based on engagement with place and community. His philosophy is similar to but extends beyond the critical theory by making the human-nature relationship the centre.

According to some critics, ecological awareness is necessary, but education should deal with economic systems, political power, and social justice, with equal rigor. The Orr-inspired curriculum risks, in other words, is a curriculum that concentrates on consciousness, but does not prepare students to deconstruct the structural drivers of unsustainability. His localized, place-based paradigm is strong but immensely challenging to scale in and resource-limited public education systems. Finally, David Orr makes us evaluate education based on its results: Does it help people who will preserve a habitable, humane, and beautiful world? His essay is a fundamental and provocative work for anyone reconsidering the ultimate purpose of education.

(The writer is Head and Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Mahatma Basweshwar College, Latur. Views personal.)