When children are killed in a war, statistics don’t reveal how old they were at the time of death. Similarly, when compensation is calculated for the victims of a natural or man-made disaster, the age at which a child’s growth and education was disrupted is not considered. Yet, disruption has sharply different implications for a three-year-old compared to a 13-year-old. Each suffers a different kind of trauma, but the term “childhood” conceals the distinction.

Even more deceptive is the term “adolescence”. Its span is believed to cover the early teen years, associated with changing moods and unpredictable behaviour. How adolescents think is even more mysterious. For routine purposes, they generally show maturity, and among the poor, they are expected to perform adult roles. But few people, including parents and educators, understand the mental architecture of the teen years and what is worth teaching at this age.

Is it a good idea to teach about corruption to a 13-year-old studying in Class VIII? The recent debate over a Social Science textbook completely bypassed this moot question.

When the Supreme Court gave an adverse verdict on a new Social Science textbook, many commentators wrote that there was nothing wrong with teaching judicial corruption in Class VIII. Few people, even among professional educators, read Piaget or Freud these days. They are briefly discussed in some teacher training institutes, mainly to enable students to answer exam questions. Piaget devoted his life to understanding cognitive development during childhood while Freud delved into the unconscious mind of the young child. The two great scholars represent two different........

© Indian Express