The educational scene in Madhya Pradesh is currently witnessing some upheaval. The issue at hand isn’t the debate on history that has been in the limelight in the context of NCERT’s recent exercise in formulating curriculum guidelines for the country. It is more local in nature, although it will have a wide-ranging impact in determining the space for educational innovations and the contours of decentralised governance. The District Planning Committees (DPC) of Hoshangabad and Harda districts recently decided to discontinue the Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme (HSTP). For those unaware of what HSTP is, a little background would not be out of place.

HSTP is a programme of teaching science in middle schools (Classes 6, 7 and 8). The package was developed by scientists and academicians from various universities and research institutes in the country, most particularly Delhi University, and activists/academicians from three non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Hoshangabad district - Friends Rural Centre (FRC), Kishore Bharati (KB) and Eklavya. Initially run as an experimental programme in 16 schools of two blocks of Hoshangabad district, it was scaled up to the district level in 1978 and seeded in school complexes in 13 other districts of Madhya Pradesh in 1982.

The programme introduced, perhaps for the first time in government schools in the country, a universally acknowledged pedagogical approach to the teaching of science. This guided discovery-based approach uses experiments performed in the classroom by students to generate knowledge. Students discuss their experimental observations and leading questions guide them to a conceptual understanding of the underlying scientific principles. In short, students don’t memorise a body of scientific definitions, theories or laws but ‘discover’ such knowledge for themselves. Also, they are not burdened with highly abstract concepts which they may not have the mental ability to deal with at that age. There is general agreement among pedagogists that this is the way science should be taught in schools, by broadly duplicating the ‘method of science’ within the classroom.

What is of equal importance is that an attempt has been made to create administrative and academic support systems within the state education department to ensure that the programme is implemented reasonably faithfully and consistently at the ground level. This is an essential prerequisite if such a programme is to be expanded geographically. Science cells have been set up at the District Education Office (DEO), provisions have been made for the supply and replenishment of kit and materials to conduct experiments, teacher training systems which involve annual trainings as well as continuing monthly discussion and training sessions have been evolved and regular follow-up visits to schools are also undertaken.

So if HSTP is so forward looking and innovative, why did the DPCs of Hoshangabad and Harda seek its closure? Experience shows that opposition develops quite naturally to anything that is new and out of the ordinary — off the beaten track. The opposition is posited on several arguments that reveal the nature of problems any innovative programme faces in gaining universal acceptance and becoming part of the mainstream.

First is the fear of isolation. Why us? is the common refrain of opponents of the programme. They resent the fact that their children are being used as guinea pigs by academicians who seem to have very little understanding of the concerns of parents about the future prospects of their children. If this science is so good, why isn’t it being introduced on a wider scale, especially in elite schools? they ask.

Second is the unsettling nature of the programme. To a student community bred on memorising facts, the absence of answers in the science textbooks generates uncertainty. Examinations, which otherwise are a test of one’s ability to regurgitate information, become an unknown quantity, especially if the student has not performed the experiments. (S)he cannot take recourse to tuitions or guides to cross the examination barrier.

Third, when knowledge is woven around an understanding of the local environment, people tend to feel they are being taken for a ride, of being fobbed off with low-level, second class science. For them, studying leaves and insects or playing with magnets and simple battery operated circuits can, under no circumstances, be compared to the more glamorous frontier science of quantum mechanics, biotechnology and information technology. There is also the classical rural-urban divide at play here, with urbanised students turning their nose up at this poor cousin ‘rural’ science.

Fourth, both parents and students are worried about a perceived lack of linkages between the HSTP curriculum at the middle school level and the science taught in the high school. No chemical formulae, no atoms or molecules, no laws, no theories. They feel they are missing out on a large body of scientific knowledge. They also feel that children’s performance in science in the higher classes deteriorates, as a consequence.

Fifth, there is a general perception that because of its lack of a broader information base, HSTP somehow cripples aspirants in career-determining examinations like the PET, PMT and PPT. They feel this ‘backward’ science robs them of the competitive edge.

How justified are these fears? It is illustrative to study the case of the Harda DPC. When members of the committee were later approached by Eklavya workers and given more concrete information about the programme, they acted swiftly, reversing their decision at the next DPC meeting and passing a resolution in favour of HSTP.

So one major lacuna is lack of information. Academicians are so intent in looking into the pedagogical aspects of their programmes that they tend to neglect the human side. Lines of communication need to be kept open with parents and the community. They need to be taken into confidence and informed about the content and objectives of the programme. Otherwise, suspicion and scepticism find fertile grounds to breed unhindered in the resultant vacuum of ignorance. Such suspicions can also be utilised by vested interests to sabotage any worthwhile effort.

At the pedagogical level, it is easier to refute the ‘backward’ science argument. The simple experiments using simple and readily available apparatus and materials lead students to an understanding of complex concepts like electrical charge, force, chemical reactions, diversity etc. These are universal concepts which apply whether one talks about leaves or quantum mechanics. A comparative study of the content in Class 9 and HSTP reveals that the latter covers in depth as many as 10 of the 13 concepts a student is expected to internalise in Class 9. The study effectively demolishes the linkage argument as well.

An assessment of examination results also shows that HSTP students do not suffer any ‘ill effects’ in the higher classes. On the contrary, proponents of the programme argue that children are better equipped to handle science in senior classes because their grounding is sound, based on doing and understanding. This enhances their problem solving skills and equips them to analyse new information and derive generalisations. They are thus better equipped to deal with new situations in their lives, particularly in a scenario where the factual basis of knowledge is growing exponentially. Prof. Yash Pal puts it well when he says we lose the very ability to understand if we fail to understand the scientific principles underlying familiar everyday things around us.

A study of success rates in competitive examinations like PET/PMT/PPT across the 45 districts of undivided Madhya Pradesh for the period from 1996 to 1998 nails the lie that Hoshangabad district lags in contributing successful candidates. In fact, the situation is quite the reverse. Leaving aside the urbanised districts, where students are generally better informed because of their greater access to knowledge bases, Hoshangabad actually tops among the rural districts. It may be a moot point how much HSTP may have contributed, considering it is taught at the middle school level. However, it certainly does not seem to have been a negative factor in this respect.

The isolation argument can also be countered by hard fact. The HSTP package has formed the base of similar programmes in government schools undertaken by the Lok Jumbish Parishad in Rajasthan and Aavishika in Gujarat. Representatives of SCERTs from several states like Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra etc have studied the programme to initiate parallel efforts in their own states. In addition, international delegations from China, South Africa and Unesco have visited Hoshangabad to get a first hand look at the programme in operation at the field level. Hoshangabad has, in fact, become a generic name for this methodology of teaching science and the total package has won several awards worldwide for its innovative features.

What is of interest is that elite schools in Indore (Choithram, Vidyasagar, Karnataka Vidya Niketan) and Mumbai (Don Bosco’s) have adapted and modified the programme to dovetail it into the existing CBSE curriculum. More such schools are evincing interest in the programme, given the fact that curriculum packages are becoming unreasonably bloated and children are groaning under the constantly growing burden. These are especially welcome initiatives since they reveal an open-ness to utilising the package in a flexible manner, countering accusations of rigidity and inflexibility.

However, continuing opposition has thrown up several questions about innovative programmes that require answers if education is to move beyond rote learning. The first, referred to earlier, is rooting the programme more firmly among the people and taking the community into confidence. HSTP has taken the first step of involving students, teachers and educational administrators in resolving pedagogical issues. NGOs like Eklavya, which is currently involved with the programme at the field level, need to take the next step of wider interaction with the general public. Some initiatives in this direction are being taken, with fairly encouraging results. There exists a large constituency of teachers, students, parents and others who have been able to assess the advantages of an HSTP-type methodology and a growing counter movement against the closure is developing.

Second, the state, although agreeing in principle that HSTP is a programme that needs to be expanded, has hesitated to take the plunge for several reasons. Even the NCERT had recommended its expansion as far back as 1991 on the basis of the report of a committee it set up under the chairmanship of its former director Prof. Ganguli to evaluate the programme. A major reason is the ground level difficulties likely to be encountered in implementing an experiment-based teaching methodology over a macro area.

Motivating teachers to reorient their thinking from a lecture/demonstration method of teaching to a participative method of experiment-based learning is not easy. This is as much a socio-economic as an attitudinal problem, given the tuition-dependent system of instruction prevalent in schools. Organising trainings, monthly meetings and examinations, particularly practical examinations, is equally difficult. A bureaucracy, by its very nature, resents change and making the educational bureaucracy respond creatively to the needs of an innovative programme is a Herculean task.

It seems unlikely that NGOs can play the kind of role they have been playing till now in an expanded programme. The challenge is to have government organisations like the SCERT and DIETs take over many of the functions of NGOs and internalise some of their attitudinal attributes. That a government can move into the innovative mode if the political and bureaucratic will is there is evident from several of its other initiatives in primary education, information technology, resource management etc. The challenge is also to redefine the role of NGOs, not to sideline them, since it is crucial to ensure the continuous involvement of civil society organisations in education. That space requires to be institutionalised as a matter of policy.

Dilution in quality is inevitable in expansion. So an evaluation of the existing programme needs to be undertaken immediately to identify what its non-negotiable minimum package is and what features can be modified or even excluded. The programme has been running for close on 30 years. A fair degree of inertia and boredom has set in. Many new ideas in science teaching have been generated in the interim. Some rethinking is already being done in Eklavya, particularly on the quantum and role of information given in the textbooks. More anecdotal and factual data are being incorporated to support experiments, particular in the context of difficult concepts. Some preliminary work is also being done on developing experimental chapters on atoms and molecules, to give children a grounding which can be reinforced in later classes. The definition of ‘method of science’ is also undergoing a transition.

However, among the non-negotiable items is performing experiments. Without that, the programme is no better than the current rote learning, demonstration/lecture method. Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh has already directed the education department to have an evaluation done so that the essential and positive features of HSTP can be dovetailed into the new science curriculum the state is set to devise.

One crucial aspect to be looked into more closely is the role of local bodies in determining what is to be taught in schools. Balancing the centrifugal forces of the state requirement of a uniform curriculum and the centripetal forces of local bodies like Gram Sabhas and Zilla Parishads seeking to make their own decisions based local considerations is a delicate affair, requiring debate on national versus regional or local needs in curriculum development. At the moment, curriculum decisions are not within the purview of local bodies. However, given the general trend towards decentralisation, it is unlikely the state would make an issue of the matter and head into a collision with the local bodies.

NGOs like Eklavya, for whom decentralisation is an article of faith, are natural allies of any process which takes power to the periphery. They would also support any process that ensures plurality in curriculum formulation, given the widely disparate conditions prevailing in the country. Even where national concerns take precedence, they would like to ensure space to accommodate regional, local, ethnic and other sentiments.

Thus, the issue is not whether local bodies has the right to make decisions on educational issues but rather on their ability to do so. It would not be a healthy trend for curriculum issues to be determined by populist concerns. They need to be rooted in a deeper understanding of the pedagogical implications. Local bodies presently lack such expertise. This is a generalised problem since they require similar expertise in decision-making in other spheres as well. They need to equip themselves to take considered decisions. The immediate answer could lie in a system of consultation being put in place while the longer term option would be to develop their own expertise. Just as ministers in parliament are supported in decision making by parliamentary expert committees, local bodies, too, should have access to the expertise of professional bodies that could proffer the necessary advice in such matters. Otherwise, their decisions could well prove a travesty of logic and reason, or the outcome of political expediency.

That is another very real danger to guard against - the use of local bodies as tools in political jockeying. When real issues are lacking, education is always a soft option to be utilised in the political arena. Innovative programmes easily fall prey to such transitory pulls, with political parties preying on the fears of the community. In fact, there is more than a passing suspicion that the current travails HSTP finds itself in are based not so much on cogent argument as the fencing which takes place between political contenders at the local level. The next meeting of the Hoshangabad DPC is thus crucial.

REX D’ROZARIO