- As far as the value proposition of our platform over others is concerned, we are today the platform most widely available and used. So when a young person is getting familiar with our technology, she or he is also acquiring employability skills.
- We believe both open-source and proprietary models can coexist, and have their own places. So our focus is on enabling users on the Microsoft platform to connect to other platforms, applications and data easily.
- But finally, the issue is not what platform should be used: what is imperative is to get these tools to reach critical mass.
- The combination of quality content, partnerships, training, and broad access, complemented with the most appropriate technology to author, distribute, teach, and connect, can transform education.
***
Arjun Singh's Union ministry of human resource development (HRD), like most other ministries, is not known to outsource key policy papers. But when it came to introducing information & communication technology (ICT) in school education, it went against the norm. In the process it has upset educationists, who fear that the draft policy favours multinational companies like Microsoft, Intel, NIIT and Educomp, which could ultimately end up monopolising the Rs 40,000-crore market for ICT in schools.
In June 2007 the ministry had engaged the Global E-schools & Communities Initiative (geSCI), a conglomerate of Ireland, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland and Finland, to prepare the draft policy. In turn, geSCI roped in the Centre for Science, Development & Media Studies (CSDMS), a Delhi-based NGO. The sticking point is that CSDMS works in collaboration with Microsoft and others.
"It's puzzling that the HRD ministry subcontracted a policy as important as this one," says Prof Amman Madan of IIT Kanpur. "It shows that the ministry has no policy of its own. It's almost like letting medicine vendors dictate the medical policy of the government."
Like Madan, some 30 educationists, mostly from the IITs, IIMs, the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Mumbai, and other central institutions, have written to Arjun Singh to express concern at the prominence given to private agencies with little experience in the Indian education system—and worse, allowing them to dictate an important national policy. They have accused the ministry of "engaging in privatisation of national policy and making public interest subservient to private gains" and demanded a transparent discussion before finalisation of policy.
The letter says: "The ICT industry is dominated by huge monopolies—Intel (hardware), Microsoft (operating system & Office), Educomp (selling licensed content such as CDs) and NIIT (the largest ICT training company) with vested interests in the policy. The national policy on ICT is essentially an issue with curricula and systemic implications and not a technology-sector policy." It goes on to add that "India has close to a million government schools with 5.5 million teachers, making it the largest ICT market in the world and attractive to vendors."
This market could serve as an important ground to introduce standardisation, on which technology monopolies such as Microsoft and others thrive. To put it simply, if the policy is implemented, each school will be required to pay a licence fee to put the curriculum in place. The fee of Rs 7,000 itself seems nominal, but the educationists are taking exception to the enslavement of the young to Windows, Excel worksheets and the like will make them continue to use only that proprietory software long after they leave school. The draft policy makes no mention of alternatives such as Linux or open-source software. Many say that for the big software players, it's a 'catch 'em young' scheme.
The letter refers to the HRD ministry's National Curriculum Framework, 2005, which says: "Such technology must be used most effectively for the betterment of society and humankind." But the ministry has largely ignored the imperatives of its own education policy. In fact, the government's own wing, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), was not taken into confidence for framing a policy for school-going children.
Educationists say that the fundamental aim of education—providing opportunity for learning and socialisation— should not be confused with the consumption of content. Similarly, knowledge or understanding should not be confined to acquiring facts. In fact, Madan says it's important to define ICT's goals education, and that it makes sense to endorse open-source software, which is easy to obtain and tailor for specific uses. Both IIT Bombay and IIT Kanpur have consciously opted for open-source software, as the costs of operation is one-third of, say, Windows.
Microsoft, which makes Windows, however, maintains that this view is untenable. Karan Bajwa, its director, public sector, for India, says open-source software can be expensive, contrary to popular belief. He also counters the argument that private players are dictating policy: "ICT policy is the mandate of the HRD ministry...but the final decision is the prerogative of the ministry." Interestingly, even as the government continues to assert that no policy will take off without appropriate consultation with educationists, the official website of geSCI is already laying claim to doing the groundwork for the national ICT policy.
States like Kerala and Goa have opted for an open-source system. Joseph Mathew, the IT adviser to the Kerala government , says: "The state took a conscious decision to go for the open-source system of computer education, as the education curriculum is too important to be left to private parties. We didn't want students to turn into consumers. If students are taught only to learn Microsoft applications, as is most often the case, it would restrict the learning process by virtue of being proprietary in nature."
To the uproar among educationists over the draft policy, the government has responded with a kneejerk reaction. It instituted a committee to look into the matter— this one under the NCERT—a month ago. But with two parallel committees at work, the final word on the subject is anybody's guess. As educationist Anita Rampal asks, "Which one of the two is the legitimate committee—the one formed by geSCI or the new committee set up by the government? Shouldn't the framers of education policy have a say in it?"
For now, the HRD ministry is tight-lipped. Repeated attempts by Outlook to get a response were in vain. Perhaps a ministry better known for its socialist credentials is finding the criticism of having "sold out" to private interests a little difficult to explain.
