The Educational Policy Dilemma for Rural Areas

The article entitled "General Education versus Special Education for Rural Development" (Elinor G. Barber, this issue) sets out to provide a long-overdue reaction to the decade-long emphasis on nonformal educational alternatives, particularly for rural learners. Yet, while a reassessment of the value of general formal education for the rural areas is badly needed, the article fails to provide a convincing argument in its favor. Instead, the article presents a confusing series of arguments buttressed by a bewildering array of research citations which miss the point of the argument. At first reading, the argument seems plausible, but a more careful reexamination of the logic reveals some serious flaws which leave the reader unconvinced of the merit of the basic thesis. Worse, the article provides policymakers with little in the way of realistic policy options with regard to rural education. The problems of the article can be usefully discussed under four general headings. First, the topic cannot be addressed without linking the various alternatives for rural education to the larger issue of the kind of development which will be enhanced by the choice of policy. There are clear linkages between the chosen educational strategy and its impact on the lives and options of the poorer segments of the population. Second, an examination of the situation existing in the many countries now operating under a policy of one system of primary education for all reveals a de facto dual system that perpetuates the inequities. Advocating an expansion of general education, as the article implicitly does, without addressing the realities, seems hollow in the light of the problems educational planners face. Third, the article confuses critiques of the failures of the formal education system in rural areas with advocacy of alternative approaches. In so doing, it fails to address the very real limitations of formal education in a rural context. Fourth, the article uses the terms formal education, basic education, and general education on the one hand as equivalent, and on the other hand, nonformal, practical, and vocational education as the alternative. The casual grouping of these terms as representative of two distinct policies creates considerable conceptual confusion, particularly among readers who are accustomed to the generally accepted meanings of these terms in educational literature.