July 8, 2002

Shri R. Gopalakrishnan

Secretary to the Chief Minister,

Govt. of Madhya Pradesh,

Bhopal.

Dear Shri Gopalakrishnan,

We have had a closer look at the data shared by you with us at the meeting referred above. On reviewing the data and the conclusions drawn from it we would like to submit the following:

1. The analysis of the data from district-wise performance in Class X examination of year 2002 has severe limitations for drawing any conclusion regarding the efficacy of the HSTP at the middle school level for the following reasons:

• The present examinations at Class X 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. Since HSTP gives more emphasis to development of these skills as per the guidelines of the National Curricular Framework and discouraged learning by rote, it would be unfair to assess the impact of HSTP by analyzing the results in these examinations only.
• In any case HSTP interacts only with some of the science teachers from high school as resource teachers, and that too in context of the teaching of science at the middle schools. To expect that this should make an overall impact for all subjects at the 10^th Class Board exam is an improbable hypothesis and cannot lead to any logical conclusions regarding HSTP’s impact.
• You stated that Hoshangabad district ranks around 20th position in cross district comparisons of two variables, i.e. percentage of students scoring more than 60% marks in science and overall pass percentage concluding that HSTP had little or no impact. The nature of the data is totally inadequate to support such a hypothesis. For one, the variation in efficiency of functioning of the high school system across districts has to be accounted for through a research design that looks at samples that have similar conditions in high school. In fact the two tables support the hypothesis that with Hoshangabad district performing at an average level (around 20^th) in overall performance, the performance in science is in accordance with this average level of high school efficiency. Since HSTP had made no attempt to address issues concerning high school teaching, it would not be judicious to derive conclusions on performance of HSTP.
• We have looked at performance levels in Classes IX and X to examine the doubt expressed that with no training in information memorization and information content of ‘Bal Vaigyanik’ books not being same as the mainstream books, HSTP children would fare badly in high school science. For this we have looked at comparative performance of children in high schools where children from both the streams enter a common class. Such situations are available for study in school complexes outside Hoshangabad and Harda district. Our studies show that HSTP students are able to cope just as well as the other students inspite of de-emphasizing rote learning. We have submitted these results in our review, burt more such studies are in progress.

3. A similar logic applies to the question 'Have children from Hoshangabad done outstandingly well in PET/PPT/PMT examinations?' We feel that posing and examining such a question is flawed fundamentally for the following reasons:

• An intervention in improving science teaching in Class 6 to Class 8 can at best be a minor contribution to the success rate of students in post-school competitive examinations. Factors like level of teaching at high and higher secondary stages or nature and extent of extra coaching availed, etc. could play a more determining role. HSTP has never made any such claim though many successful students have given statements to the effect that the way science was taught to them in middle school inspired and equipped them with self confidence for competitive examinations.
• We presented an analysis in response to criticism that HSTP had led to poor performance of Hoshangabad students in competitive examinations. According to this analysis, cross district data for three consecutive years showed that Hoshangabad district was among the better performing districts, laying to rest such doubts.
• The Table — 4 presented in the report has selectively shown data for three districts only and given a very superficial conclusion. We find the posing of a an inappropriate hypothesis and use of very selective data to suggest a conclusion somewhat inappropriate.

3. We agree that data on growth in literacy rates and gender development index cannot have any bearing on reviewing the impact of HSTP and need not be part of any such report.
4. In light of the above, we would like to reiterate that data of this nature and any analysis based on it should not form the basis of any recommendation or informed decision regarding the future course of HSTP.

6. We hope a detailed review of the programme will be undertaken on a sound basis, as proposed by you at an earlier meeting on April 1. An independent expert review team would be set up and a detailed terms of reference would be drawn up.

7. We also hope that the review we have presented as well as the data collected by the department are autonomously scrutinised by educationists and scientists of high standing. We request you to make available the full assessment report as well as the raw data in hard and soft copies so that we can share this information with the large academic group involved in HSTP and analyse it for the learnings we can draw from it. We feel that this data would be useful in identifying issues pertaining to high school education and the transition of HSTP students into the mainstream.
8. We are sharing the ideas thrown up by you and Ms. Amita Sharma in that meeting with our larger resource group. However, I would like to respond to two of them immediately:

• Your suggestion that for quality improvement the major efforts were required in Teacher training and supplementary support to the teachers and that curricula and text were not of much consequence. I can definitely say for science teaching that curriculum, text and examination have exercised a stranglehold on what takes place in the classroom. Without touching them, a number of programmes have shown that teacher trainings become irrelevant formalities and the locks of kit boxes are never opened since the teachers know that their success will be judged through examinations relying almost totally on information recall. Curriculum designers and policy makers will have to face the question squarely as to why our texts and evaluation systems are in total contradiction of the National Curricular Frameworks. We feel convinced that the sanctity accorded to texts from NCERT or SCERT or any expert body needs to be questioned and the power both academic and real needs to be built up with teachers in district level groups. The positive feature of Bal Vaigyanik is that it emerged from a process where subject experts from institutions like Delhi University, TIFR and elsewhere came down to Hoshangabad schools to develop curricula materials with teachers rather than send down texts from their citadels.
• We feel that these two issues — partnership between voluntary NGO and the State and partnership between teachers and subject experts have been two unique features of HSTP that need to be reviewed in depth. In fact reviewing these aspects of HSTP and their impact would be of more fundamental nature than just looking at achievements in traditional public exams.

We look forward to continuing this process of frank and concerned consultation and exchange.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Kamal Mahendroo)

for the Eklavya group

Copy to:

1. Shri Amar Singh,

Principal Secretary School Education

2 Ms Amita Sharma,

Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission.

July 8, 2002

Shri Digvijay Singh,

Honourable Chief Minister,

Government of Madhya Pradesh,

Bhopal.

Ref.: Our letters dated 20^th June 2002 and 27^th June 2002.

Dear Shri Digvijayji,

While we wait for the requested meeting with you on the above referred issues, we would like to bring the following two issues to your notice:

1. In a meeting with Shri Gopalakrishnan and Ms. Amita Sharma in context of the ongoing process of review of the programme, on July 3 2002 certain issues of data gathering, review and decision making process were discussed. We have responded to some of the issues discussed (please see enclosed letter).
2. In this context we would like to submit that a high level independent expert team may please be constituted to conduct an extensive review of the programme in a time bound schedule. The main task of the committee should be to identify the positive features of the programme that may be implemented in the entire state, and suggest a work plan to do so, as per the directives given by you.
3. Any decision regarding the programme in Hoshangabad must await this process and not preempt an in depth review by independent experts. We feel strongly that any preemptive decision will be a great injustice to a very serious and intensive combined effort of many committed people to improve quality of education. It will also send very negative political signals in various quarters.
4. We welcome the appointment of the new State Advisory Board of Education and would request that the process of review may be conducted under its aegis.
5. The five agenda points that we seek to discuss are:

1. Potential of a State-level Programme to improve levels of Science and Mathematics Education at school level in Madhya Pradesh.
2. Hoshangabd Science Teaching Programme: the contribution it can make to such a programme.
3. Future directions of Eklavya’s partnership with the State Government — What are the possibilities? What are the perceived problems?
4. Social Science Teaching Programme — How can it contribute to the process of developing a secular, progressive and academically sound curricular programme for teaching of social sciences in schools.
5. Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia’s invitation to Eklavya to develop programmes to improve quality of education in Guna, Shivpuri and Gwalior districts.