A NOTE ON THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO CLOSE THE HOSHANGABAD SCIENCE TEACHING PROGRAMME (HSTP)*

A NOTE ON

MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO CLOSE

HOSHANGABAD

SCIENCE TEACHING PROGRAMME

(HSTP)

significant policy level issues

Submitted to

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

President of India

September 3, 2002

On behalf of

EKLAVYA

E-7/HIG-453, Arera Colony

Bhopal 462 016

Tel.: (0755) 463380, 464824/Fax: (0755) 461703

Email: eklavyamp@vsnl.com

A NOTE ON MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO CLOSE THE HOSHANGABAD SCIENCE TEACHING PROGRAMME (HSTP)
- significant policy level issues

HISTORY

In 1972, the Government of Madhya Pradesh gave permission to two voluntary agencies (Friends Rural Centre Rasulia and Kishore Bharati) based in Hoshangabad District to introduce inquiry-based method of learning science through experiments in 16 middle or upper primary schools (i.e. in classes VI-VIII) of the District on a trial basis. The work was started with the support of All India Science Teachers Association and senior scientists like Prof. Yash Pal and Prof. VG Kulkarni from TIFR, Mumbai.

In 1973, UGC approved a proposal from a group of scientists from Delhi University to work in Hoshangabad District on UGC Teacher Fellowships. A large number of Delhi University scientists and later science teachers from Madhya Pradesh Government Colleges worked as UGC Teacher Fellows with the teachers and children of Hoshangabad District to develop science workbooks and science kits and to train teachers, undertake school follow-up visits and evolve new evaluation parameters for testing scientific attributes.

In 1974-75, the State Government took the bold decision of permitting the HSTP schools to evolve and execute its own examination system designed to promote scientific temper and skills at class VIII level as part of the mainstream middle school board examination. This was a historic decision without which HSTP would have collapsed in that year itself.

In 1975, the then Regional College of Education of NCERT assessed the programme and started participating in it from then onwards.

In 1978, the State Government consulted NCERT and approved a proposal to undertake a macro-scale expansion of HSTP to all the middle schools (at that time over 250) of the District with the specific objective of evolving and field testing structures and processes for internalizing HSTP within the Government school system. The NCERT actively supported the district-level expansion.

As part of the above district-level macro-scale expansion of HSTP, the Government took the following progressive decisions that were without parallel in the history of education in India: (i) created a Vigyan Ikai in the Divisional education office to provide administrative and technical support to the programme; (ii) asked the State Textbook Corporation of Madhya Pradesh to publish HSTP workbooks and distribute them through the approved book sellers of the District; (iii) provided budgetary support for teacher training; (iv) included school inspectors and high school science teachers in training programme; (v) allowed one High School in each of the 11 Blocks to act as a Sangam Kendra for holding monthly meetings, distributing science kit, collecting academic feedback and performing other resource functions on the principle of decentralized governance.

In 1982, a separate voluntary agency called Eklavya was set up with the initiative of the Planning Commission and support of the Ministry of HRD, Department of Science Technology (Govt. of India), UGC and the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh to assume academic leadership of HSTP and to initiate educational innovations in other subjects as well.

In 1984-86, the State Government allowed expansion of HSTP to 13 other Districts in one school cluster (6-8 middle schools) each.

By late eighties, the State Government permitted Eklavya to introduce its Primary Education Programme (Prashika), covering all subjects, in selected primary schools of Shahpur Block of Betul District.

Alongwith the initiative in primary education, the State Government permitted Eklavya to develop and implement its Social Sciences curriculum in 8 Government middle schools. This curriculum was designed to build up a humane, secular, democratic and egalitarian perspective amongst children for viewing social issues.

11. In 1991, the Government of India constituted a six-member high level Expert Committee to evaluate HSTP and make recommendations for its future under the convenorship of the Head of science education department of NCERT. This committee after its field visit concluded that the programme is based upon sound curricular and pedagogic principles. It recommended that the programme be extended to the entire state.

12. In 1992, the then BJP State Government tried to close the programme but could not do so because another review committee constituted by it gave a favourable report. The BJP government then suppressed the report.

In 1994-95, Eklavya gave a proposal to the State Government to extend HSTP to all the middle schools of Madhya Pradesh. The Government did not consider the proposal apparently on the plea that it was focusing its attention only on primary education under World Bank’s District Primary Education Programme (DPEP)!

In 1999, Eklavya was given the Jawahar Lal Nehru award for promoting Science Education by the Indian Science Congress.

CLOSURE OF HSTP: BACKGROUND

In the year 2000, Eklavya submitted a proposal once again for state-level expansion of HSTP. The Chief Minister, in a meeting in presence of Prof. Yash Pal and Chief Secretary and other senior government officials, directed that a fresh review by experts be conducted and an action plan be drawn up for improving science education along the lines of HSTP across the entire state.

In 2001, the Government issued a notification permitting Eklavya’s Social Science Teaching Programme to continue in 8 middle schools only for one more year. In July 2002, by refusing to issue a notification for renewing the permission, the Government allowed the programme to have a natural burial by default. No academic review of the Social Science Teaching Programme has ever been undertaken by the Government.

In February 2002, the State Finance Minister chairing the Zila Yojana Samiti meeting promptly approved the proposal made by a local BJP MLA to recommend closure of HSTP on entirely flimsy grounds (`children have problems in collecting leaves’ or `children are asked to touch naked wires to test current’).

On March 5, 2002, the Chief Minister declared in Vidhan Sabha that HSTP’s strengths will be extended to the entire State curriculum after conducting a review.

Nine out of 12 voting members of the Zila Yojana Samiti wrote to the Collector-cum-Member-Secretary seeking a review of the earlier decision taken in haste. At the following meeting held in May 2002, it was decided to wait for the outcome of the review being undertaken by the Chief Minister.

Between February-June 2002, a large number of leading scientists and educationists from all over the country wrote to the Chief Minister urging him not to take any adverse decision regarding HSTP. Similarly, several teachers, students, members of the general public and political leaders (mostly belonging to the Congress Party) from Hoshangabad District also appealed to the Chief Minister to continue the programme.

Ignoring the decision of the Zila Yojana Samiti and the large number of appeals from across the country as well as Hoshangabad District, the State Government ordered closure of HSTP on July 3, 2002, initially only in the District. This was done without any academic review whatsoever, despite the Chief Minister’s promise in the Vidhan Sabha. A month later, almost as an afterthought, the Government ordered closure of HSTP in 14 other Districts as well.

On July 23, 2002, Prof. Yash Pal and a number of scientists and social scientists from Delhi University and JNU addressed a Press Conference in Delhi to protest the State Government’s decision.

On August 3-4, 2002, there were a public protest meeting in Hoshangabad town and an academic dharna in Bhopal organized collectively by a number of social movements, people’s science organizations and cultural groups of Madhya Pradesh against the Government’s retrogressive decision. The former Education Secretary of the Govt. of India Shri Anil Bordia addressed a Press Conference on the issue at the dharna site.

Four eminent members of the State Advisory Board on Education (SABE), including Prof. Romila Thapar and Prof. Mushirul Hasan, jointly wrote to the Chief Minister requesting him to withhold the implementation of the order to close HSTP until a meeting of SABE is convened to consider the policy implications of the decision.

In early August, the State Government invited Eklavya to become its Technical Resource Agency to help SCERT to undertake training of teachers throughout the State. However, in spite of repeated urgings, the Government has so far not given any commitment to extend the progressive HSTP curriculum and pedagogy to the entire state.

Yet, on August 7, 2002, Eklavya responded in positive terms but sought certain critical clarifications, particularly with regard to the curricular and pedagogic direction the Government desired to take in future. It also insisted on the

re-instatement of HSTP as an evidence of the Government’s commitment to the National Policy on Education, 1986 and globally accepted principles of science education. There has been no response from the Government as yet.

On September 2, 2002, several eminent scientists of the country issued a joint statement of concern about the arbitrary closure of HSTP. They stated that, "Nowhere else in the country (i.e. other than in HSTP schools) could the children approach the entire science curriculum through the method of science, not even in the elite public schools. Thus in HSTP, the scientific community saw a hope for better science education for the rest of the country. The state government’s decision has extinguished this hope." They appealed to the Chief Minister "to intervene in this matter and re-instate the programme in Hoshangabad and 14 other districts so that more than one lakh children of these districts will not be forced to revert to the rote-learning of science." The signatories included Professors M.G.K. Menon (Delhi), Yash Pal (Delhi), C.N.R. Rao (Bangalore), Jayant Narlikar (Pune), Obaid Siddiqi (Bangalore), P.M. Bhargava (Hyderabad), D. Balasubramanian (Hyderabad) and others.

ARBITRARY AND CHANGING GROUNDS OF GOVERNMENT’S DECISION: A CRITIQUE

The Government has adopted several different postures during the past two months in enforcing its decision to close HSTP. The changing grounds offered by the Government as its rationale for the decision have been widely questioned in public. The critique, already available in media and internet, is summarized below.

Democratic Demand by the People

In its closure order of July 3, 2002, the Government stated that the programme is being closed on the basis of recommendation made by the Zila Yojana Samiti (i.e. District Planning Committee) at its February meeting. The Government later defended its decision claiming its commitment to the principle of decentralized governance. However, this rationalization is belied by the following facts:

Nine out of twelve voting members of the Zila Yojana Samiti wrote to the Collector-cum-Member-Secretary of the Samiti asking for a review of the February decision taken in haste. The Samiti met in May and decided to withhold its earlier decision until the review of HSTP being undertaken by the Chief Minister is completed. No academic review was ever undertaken. Yet, the Government issued the closure order ignoring the decision of the Samiti taken at its May meeting.

The Zila Yojana Samitis of the 14 other districts did not make any recommendation for closure of the programme. Yet, the Government issued the closing orders in August for those districts as well, without even making a pretension of acting on the principle of decentralized governance!

Similarly, in the case of Eklavya’s Social Science Teaching Programme, there was not even a discussion at any of the concerned Zila Yojana Samitis. This did not prevent the Government, however, to let the programme close by default.

Well before the July order was issued, a memorandum in support of HSTP with 1800 signatures of students, teachers and members of the general public of the Hoshangabad District was submitted to the Collector for being passed on to the Chief Minister. The Collector returned the Memorandum with the following note: `Why are they politicising the whole issue? Where is the provision for referendum?’ However, on August 2, 2002, the same Collector readily accepted a memorandum against HSTP submitted by an association of local private schools.

A large number of citizens and political leaders (mostly belonging to Congress Party) of Hoshangabad District wrote to the Chief Minister requesting him not to take any adverse decision regarding HSTP. However, these appeals were ignored.

Leading scientists, educationists and journalists of the country wrote to the Chief Minister protesting against this retrogressive decision. These protests have also been ignored.

Educational Outcome

In a bureaucratic report on HSTP issued by the Chief Minister’s secretariat, it was claimed that there has been no educational gain from HSTP since the performance of the children from the HSTP districts is not better than of those from the non-HSTP districts in Class X Board examinations or PET/PMT tests. This claim was made on the basis of data that has been shown later to be either false or entirely inadequate for making any statistically reliable comparisons. Also, no scientific methods were applied in analyzing the data. These criticisms have been sent to the Chief Minister’s secretariat in writing but the secretariat continues to spread disinformation. Apart from this, the above bureaucratic approach to assessing the educational outcome of HSTP is faulty on the following educational grounds:

The use of performance data from Board examinations or PET/PMT tests for assessing HSTP is educationally unsound because the evaluation parameters of these examinations mainly test memory recall. HSTP is instead designed to build up scientific attributes of mind amongst the children viz. inquisitiveness, ability to raise meaningful questions, design and conduct experiments, make observations, collect and analyse data, evolve and apply scientific concepts, relate concepts to environment and, above all, approach the world with scientific temper. The colonial examination system is not designed to test these scientific attributes. Why does one even expect a higher performance amongst the HSTP children with respect to such unscientific parameters? Notwithstanding this, several studies submitted to the Government have established that the HSTP children perform just as well in science as the non-HSTP children in the Class X Board examination, as would be educationally expected.

If the Government is really interested in assessing the educational gains of HSTP, it must compare HSTP children with non-HSTP children with respect to the various scientific attributes of mind at the end of class VIII level. Independent studies of this kind have been conducted by several research scholars over the years and have established that the HSTP children invariably perform better than the non-HSTP children with respect to such attributes. These studies have been submitted to the Government but deliberately not taken into account.

Policy of Uniform Textbook and Evaluation System in the State

Almost as an afterthought, following nation-wide protests, the Government started claiming that only one textbook and evaluation system should be used in the entire State. Clearly, the Government must have suddenly adopted this new policy posture since the DPEP being conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission has followed the policy of contextualised learning materials and, therefore, encouraged the use of plural textbooks. This is also in consonance with the National Policy on Education, 1986 and the recommendations of the Yash Pal Committee (1993) on `Learning Without Burden’. Also, a fresh set of evaluation parameters may have to be evolved depending upon whether the alternative textbook being used represents a curriculum with a different set of curricular objectives. It is universally acknowledged that uniformity in education can become a liability, rather than being an asset.

Even if the Government wished to follow the negative policy of uniform textbooks, may one ask as to why did the Government not decide to mainstream HSTP science workbooks along with the holistic HSTP curriculum and pedagogy? By enforcing the conventional NCERT-SCERT science textbooks in the hitherto HSTP schools, the Government has given the retrogressive signal that it prefers rote-based learning over the inquiry-oriented, experiment-based and environment-related curriculum of HSTP. In case the decision was to extend HSTP to the entire State, as was recommended by the Govt. of India committee in 1991, the signal coming out of Madhya Pradesh would have been of Government’s commitment to a progressive pedagogy of science education. Sadly, this progressive signal is not forthcoming from the Congress Government of Madhya Pradersh!

The Question of Extension of HSTP to the Entire State

The Government has claimed that the question of extension of HSTP to the entire State is under its consideration. Why did it then close the programme where it was already institutionalized? It would have made immense sense to continue HSTP while it was being academically reviewed by external experts. By closing HSTP, the Government has created the unenviable situation in which the HSTP schools would first stop teaching the HSTP curriculum in 2002-2003 and start following the conventional NCERT-SCERT curriculum but will again revert to HSTP in 2003-2004, assuming that the Government will take the progressive policy decision of state-wide expansion of HSTP!

Also, the Government would have benefited by keeping the HSTP laboratory alive in order to use it as a demonstration-cum-training ground for other districts during the phase of state-wide expansion of HSTP. May be the Government is not really serious about its promise and that is why it does not really care whether a live field laboratory exists or not!

Educationally Unsound Strategy

It is a universal practice that whenever a new set of textbooks is to be introduced, it is first introduced in the lowest grade of the concerned level (i.e. primary, upper primary, secondary or senior secondary), followed by the introduction the textbook of the next grade in each successive years. NCERT/CBSE also follow this practice. However, the State Government was in such haste to close HSTP that it stopped the use of the HSTP workbooks in all the three grades of the middle school simultaneously. This means that the children of class VII and VIII will be forced to switch from the HSTP pedagogy mid-way, with the predictable stress and adverse impact on them. The number of such children may be as large as 60,000. Why did the Government take such an educationally unsound decision? No answers seem to be coming.

6. Curricular and Pedagogic Conflict

The July order to close the programme states that the conventional NCERT-SCERT science curriculum (including its textbook) and the routine evaluation methods of the State will be compulsory in the hitherto HSTP schools. The order further states that, in addition to the NCERT-SCERT curriculum, the HSTP curriculum (including its workbook) may be used as supplementary curriculum by those schools which may so desire. The Government seems to be educationally confused. It does not apparently acknowledge the separate but determining impact of curriculum, pedagogy, textbook and evaluation methods on the quality of education. The NCERT-SCERT curriculum represents a view of education that is distinct from the one represented by the HSTP workbook (HSTP does not have any textbook!). Even the HSTP’s curricular objectives in science education are in conflict with those of NCERT-SCERT’s operating objectives, as has been the case during the past three decades of HSTP’s existence (though the declared policy objectives may not be in conflict). In this sense, the Government order seems to be saying that two fundamentally conflicting systems of curricula, pedagogies, learning materials and evaluation methods may be used in a school simultaneously, one of which would be compulsory and another supplementary! Does it make any educational sense at all?

Predictably, the above-mentioned conflict is now emerging on the ground. During the past few weeks, the SCERT trainers are ironically training the teachers of Hoshangabad District not to teach science through experiments but adopt the conventional lecture method for teaching the NCERT-SCERT textbook. Interestingly, there are reports of HSTP-trained teachers resisting the SCERT’s retrogressive curricular and pedagogic outlook. This resistance by teachers is of historic significance and needs to be recorded as evidence of HSTP’s success.

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF MINISTER

To find publicly acceptable ways for rescinding the various recent orders of the State Government resulting in the closure of the Hoshangabad Science and Social Sciences Teaching Programmes and restoring the status quo of the academic year 2001-2002. This could be done in view of the appeals made by eminent members of the State Advisory Board on Education as well as several leading scientists and educationists from all over the country. Such a measure would also be fully legitimate in view of the decision taken by the Zila Yojana Samiti at its May meeting to wait for the outcome of the academic review to be undertaken by the Chief Minister. A reference may also be made to the reports of anxiety of children in classes VII and VIII due to change of curriculum mid-way. In the meantime, separate and time-bound academic reviews by nationally known experts in science and social sciences education may be announced under the auspices of the State Advisory Board on Education. An additional justification for restoring the status quo could be given by referring to the Government’s commitment to extend the progressive curricular and pedagogic principles of HSTP and Social Science Teaching Programmes to the entire State for which the existing programmes would serve as useful field laboratories.

September 3, 2002

Prepared by

Prof. Anil Sadgopal

Department of Education

University of Delhi

Delhi 110 007