HOSHANGABAD SCIENCE TEACHING PROGRAMME : FACT SHEET

  1. Government Decision
  2. There has been a controversy about text books of Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme being converted as Supplementary text books on the basis of the decision of the District Planning Committee of Hoshangabad to opt for standard State Government text books. Eklavya which authored the text books protested to the State Government against this decision of the DPC Hoshangabad and requested Government for a review. Based on this review done by the School Education Department, it was decided to continue HSTP text books as supplementary text books. Eklavya was requested to support the Government in the role of a Technical Support Organization for mainstreaming the learning from this 30 year long experiment in Hoshangabad.

    The State Government in its review found that despite Government’s implementation of a different science education programme, deemed to be qualitatively superior, in Hoshangabad, learning levels of HSTP children in Hoshangabad when assessed in critical examinations like the Tenth Board were only at an average level and did not reflect that the HSTP children had entered the high school with distinctly superior mastery of the science subject that gave them a better base for academic performance as compared to the non HSTP children. This also indicated that an experiment that does not address the full range of mainstream issues within which it is lodged, has serious limitations. Also, while the strengths of such an experiment need to be assimilated, admittedly no programme can go on for three decades as just an experiment avoiding the kind of concerns that the mainstream has to engage with. It was with this in view that the government took the decision.

  3. Background

A few points on the background of HSTP are in order here:

Through a government notification HSTP was introduced as an experimental programme by the State Government in some government middle level schools in Hoshangabad and later all middle schools of Hoshangabad and subsequently to 99 middle schools in 13 districts. HSTP was limited to teaching Science in Classes 6-8. Under this text books different from the standard text books were introduced along with evaluation systems that were also different from the standard system. To that extent it was an experiment which the government introduced with a view to improve quality. The technical expertise came from Eklavya as a technical resource support agency. The schools were government schools and the administrative system also was that of the government. The curriculum was the same as the government because no separate curriculum was notified by the government under HSTP. Resource persons trained by Eklavya were largely government teachers. The Government’s Standing Committee that approves the standard text books evaluated and approved the HSTP text books. The text books were then notified by the Government. Funds for teacher training and monitoring also came from the Government. Text books were printed by the Text Book Corporation and bought by the children.

A fair statement on the experiment would be that the Government of Madhya Pradesh introduced different text books on an experimental basis in select government middle schools wherein technical support was provided by Eklavya.

3. Summary of Findings of State Government's Review

  1. It was examined whether children using HSTP text books in Hoshangabad in Science were doing better in Science in the 10th Board examination in comparison to children from other schools. Data from the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal of the 10th Board examination of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 specifically for the science subject, showed that Hoshangabad was not among the top 20 districts of the state. This refuted the claim of a superior method of teaching making an impact on learning outcomes of children
  2. Nearly 70% of the children were scoring less than 50% marks in the Science subject
  3. While only 26.3% children failed in science in the state, the failure rate in Hoshangabad was 30% despite the superior methodology used
  4. It was also found that the literacy growth rate as revealed in the Census of 2001 showed districts of Raisen, Narsinghpur and Betul which are all bordering districts of Hoshangabad registering between 20-32% growth whereas literacy growth rate in Hoshangabad was only 16%. Though the HSTP is limited to teaching Science in Class 6 to 8 (and could not be expected to have an impact on indicators like adult literacy) this data was examined only to ascertain if there was any larger societal impact from this educational initiative.

Based on the above, the Government concurred with the view of the District Planning Committee that there was cause for parental anxiety and that children in Hoshangabad should be given the right to study standard text books. Government however suggested use of HSTP text books as supplementary text books.

4. Events after this decision

Eklavya further represented to the Government against this decision. The points raised by Eklavya and the Government's response to them are given below:

  1. Issue raised by Eklavya: It is not valid to assess the impact of HSTP by analyzing the results of the Tenth Board Exaination. Eklavya's studies show that HSTP children do as well as non-HSTP children in the Tenth Board. Achievement levels should have been compared at the Eighth level
  2. Comment: In the joint meeting with the School Education Department and representatives of Eklavya on 1st April 2002, it was mutually agreed upon that Eklavya would submit a comparison of achievement levels at the Tenth Board Examination of the children who had passed the elementary stage with their HSTP text books with those children who had had done so with the state’s standard text books. It may be pointed out that it was not possible for a comparative evaluation of HSTP children with the non HSTP children at the 8th standard level because the text books and evaluation system at the 8th level for the HSTP and the other children are different. Both share a common stream only at the public examination of 10th Board and so a comparative evaluation is possible only at that level. Eklavya accepted this common reference norm and had no objection even when the minutes of the meeting were circulated. So Eklavya's protest against the comparison of children at the Tenth Board level does not hold in view of their acceptance of this comparative framework.

    Eklavya had also submitted such a comparison in its own review. Unfortunately its own information was very limited and vague. It compared performance between HSTP and non-HSTP children for just 5 districts without the selection criterion being indicated, and the data pertained to the years 1984 —1985. Even this very limited and outdated data did not show any significant difference between HSTP and non HSTP children, and in fact, in some cases the non-HSTP children did better in the practical tests of the Board examinations referred to in the Report submitted by Eklavya. It was necessary to access information from the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal to place the performance of the children with HSTP text books at the elementary stage in the context of the result for the entire State. The critical issue is that this was done for the subject of science particularly. This should really have given an opportunity to highlight Eklavya's contribution to the children's understanding of Science.

  3. Issue raised by Eklavya: The present examinations at Class Ten level are largely confined to information recall testing with little or no emphasis on testing a student for problem solving, experimental or analytical skills or conceptual understanding. Eklavya discourages rote learning and so Tenth Board tests do not offer a fair comparison
  4. Comment: Standard tests such as the CBSE or the State Board evaluate standard aptitudes. These are the minimum a child should be expected to pass with satisfactory levels. It is only reasonable to accept that children with better quality inputs and more evolved conceptual analysis perform better in the examinations than those who have simply memorized without much understanding. It is assumed that a person with a deeper conceptual base and understanding retain concepts and information related to them with greater facility than one who has no such understanding and has blindly dependend on memory recall. A child with just rote learning may be deficient in analytical skills, but a child with sound basic concepts, will have a stronger foundation and should be able to build on it with greater advantage

    It is to be noted that Eklavya states that its text books have in fact additional inputs while adhering to the syllabus of standard school text books. That being the case, HSTP children should be ahead of the non HSTP children and this should have been reflected in a common examination.

  5. Issue raised by Eklavya: Eklavya states that their studies prove HSTP children do as well other students
  6. Comment: This should also have been indicated in an objective test like the Tenth Board and not just internal studies by Eklavya.

  7. Issue raised by Eklavya: Eklavya asserts since HSTP has made no attempt to address issues concerning high school teaching and it would not be judicious to derive conclusions on performance of HSTP
  8. Comment: This is a serious concern. All those who intervene in a schooling system have to think about the evaluation systems that are prevalent and which will ultimately certify the children's learning level in a way that will influence their future options in higher education. After all, school certification examinations are conducted either by central or by the state government. Children have to take these examinations. The government has a responsibility for the children studying in its own schools. HSTP schools were not exempted from this requirement. Therefore, Eklavya should in fact have looked at the performance of their children at a higher level to introduce at the elementary level necessary inputs to enable an increasingly better performance at the higher level. This would have been expected of them as part of their own declared aim at mainstreaming innovation.

    It is surprising that Eklavya in the past 30 years of its work did not concern itself with how children fared in the important higher level public examinations. Some how this self- confessed lack of attempt to look at the learning continuum of the child, specially at the decisive levels of schooling, appears unfair to the child.

  9. Issue raised by Eklavya: Have children from Hoshangabad done outstanding well in PET/PPT/PMT examinations? Eklavya feels that posing and examining such a question in flawed fundamentally
  10. Comment: It is surprising that Eklavya finds this question fundamentally flawed because this was an issue that was raised by Eklavya on its own without any prompting by the government. In the meeting with the Chief Minister on 3rd March 2002 one of the representatives of Eklavya suggested that the children from Hoshangabad had done well in PET/PMT exams. This was not an issue which was raised in the joint meeting of the government and Eklavya, and Eklavya on its own submitted this information in its report. However, the data that Eklavya had given (without being solicited by the government) itself shows that the HSTP district does not necessarily fare better than a non HSTP district which has similar literacy rates.

  11. Issue raised by Eklavya: Eklavya has argued that the strength of its text books is that experts from Delhi University and TIFR came down to Hoshangabad to develop materials with the teacher
  12. Comment: The relevant issue here is not the books developed, but the process of developing them on a participatory basis with teachers. This process of material development, if it is Eklavya's strength, should be incorporated in mainstream teacher training, and this is precisely why Eklavya was offered the opportunity of collaborating with the government on teacher training. Eklavya's rejection of this offer as of 'not much consequence' (Eklavya's letter) suggests that their interest is in training government teachers on their text books (which they have been doing in Hoshangabad) and not on any other. This is unfortunate and defeats the state's concern for mainstreaming the perceived strengths of an innovation.

     

  13. Issue raised by Eklavya: Another strength is the partnership between the state and a voluntary organization

Comment: In this case it will not be fair to limit the understanding of the state to a Centrally located authority and not recognize its deepening democratic character that is emerging. The government decision recognizes this decentralized space for partnership in allowing Eklavya to run its approved text books as supplementary materials in schools that opt for them, an offer to which Eklavya has shown no response.

Summary

This decision has also been prompted by the need to have the State Government adopt a uniform curriculum across the state which should learn from the best inputs from important initiatives like HSTP and such a curriculum can be accessed by every child in the public schooling system. The Government has also respected the views of the DPC that a special package should not be limited to one district alone. Eklavya's position that the District Planning Committee has no legitimacy in deciding against its text books is not a valid position as democratic decentralization effected through the Constitution Amendment gives the Local Body powers over school management. The DPC was not intervening in issues of curriculum as "non-experts" as has been alleged but only asked for their democratic right to standard text books used across the state.

When the State Government introduced different text books, the school management was centralized. Now with the decentralized management, a decentralized institutional arrangement like a District Planning Committee has the right to ask for standard text books which enable children in their district to migrate to other districts and through the rest of the school system with ease. This was seen as a fair demand. It was felt that it was more than time to mainstream learning from HSTP rather than continue it in one district which also was rendered problematic because the legitimate authority in that very district of Hoshangabad requested for access to standard text books. The decision has therefore been fair both to DPC and Eklavya. Ekalavya has been requested to assume a larger role as a Technical Support Institution.