It is a convention followed by educational bodies and Boards that whenever there are changes or revisions in curriculum that affect more than one class in the school system, the change or revision is introduced in a phased manner, class by class. Such a procedure is followed to give both teachers and students sufficient time to adapt to the logic and needs of the new syllabus.

There are several precedents that can be quoted:

1. The NCERT notified a revision of the science curriculum in the current academic year. The revision relates to both middle school science (Class 6 to Class 8) and higher secondary school science (Class 9 and Class 10). However, it has changed the syllabus only in Class 6 and Class 9 this year and will change the Class 7 and Class 10 syllabus in the next academic session (2003-04) and the Class 8 syllabus in the third year (2004-05)
2. The SCERT followed a similar phased introduction of the science syllabus in middle schools and high schools of Madhya Pradesh in the mid ‘80s.
3. The HSTP books, when approved by the government, were also introduced in a phased manner when the government scaled the programme up from the experimental stage to the district level in 1978. Class 6 was taken up in 1978-79 and the Class 6 Bal Vaigyanik was printed by the government and supplied to the schools and the government also arranged for training teachers for the Class 6 syllabus. Class 7 was taken up in the subsequent year (1979-80) and Class 8 in the third year (1980-81).
4. A similar phased introduction of the Bal Vaigyanik textbooks was done in 1986 following a revision of the textbooks. Thus the Class 6 revised edition was introduced in 1986-87, the Class 7 in 1987-88 and Class 8 in 1988-89.

In the case of HSTP, the order of July 3, 2002 closing down the programme in Hoshangabad district applied simultaneously and with immediate effect to Class 6, 7 and 8.

In Madhya Pradesh, the middle school segment covering Class 6, 7 and 8 is considered an organic unit leading up to the Board examination in Class 8. The course content and teaching is linked conceptually at this level. So the normal procedure should have been to introduce the change over three years, beginning with Class 6 in the first year, then Class 7 in the second year and Class 8 in the third year. A continuity needs to be maintained and children should not be subjected to sudden and abrupt changes in syllabus.

Although the syllabus from Class 6 to Class 8 is more or less the same in overall terms for HSTP and the state science course, the two are structured differently because of differences in understanding of the conceptual level of children in these three classes. Thus some chapters taught in Class 6 in one stream may be taught in a higher class in the other and vice versa. So a simultaneous change in syllabus in all three classes would leave gaps in conceptual understanding of the children. Such abrupt changes cause problems in classroom learning and facing examinations.

This is especially true for Class 8 and to a lesser extent for Class 7, because children face the Board examination in Class 8.

Another problem relates to a teacher’s ability to transact a new syllabus without adequate training. Teachers in Hoshangabad have been trained in the HSTP methodology and have been transacting that syllabus for the past 24 years. They have no training or background to transact the state science syllabus which is new to them. This causes problems for both teachers and the students they teach.

The convention is to notify a change in curriculum through a gazette notification and not by an executive order. The introduction of HSTP and the Bal Vaigyanik textbooks at the district level in all government schools in Hoshangabad district in 1978 was announced through a gazette notification. However, closure of HSTP in Hoshangabad district in 2002 was done through an executive order sent from the office of the Secretary, Elementary Education, and not by a gazette notification.

Clear cut instructions were not issued to the districts other than Hoshangabad where the programme is in operation. The July 3, 2002 order specifically says the programme has been closed down in Hoshangabad district so it is not applicable to the other districts. However, the July 3 letter was marked to the collectors in the other concerned districts for information. This created confusion as a result of which the letter was forwarded to the schools as a closure order in the case of Harda district. A subsequent letter to the MP Textbook Corporation regarding supply of state science textbooks was also forwarded to schools as a closure order in Dhar.

At the meeting with Gopalkrishnan and Amita Sharma on July 3, we were given to understand that the review process was still under way. However, the closure order was also dated July 3, 2002.

The chief minister assured us on July 10 that the matter was under review.

The entire procedure for review was inadequate and one-sided. This is an especially serious lapse because of the academic nature of the issue. Such reviews require an in-depth assessment by a committee of academic experts and shouldn’t be conducted solely by bureaucrats.

1. The District Planning Committee of Hoshangabad met on February 7, 2002 and passed a resolution calling for the closure of HSTP in the district.
2. Eklavya conducted a campaign against the decision, including:

• letters/petitions from teachers, parents and children
• getting 9 of the 13 DPC members to ask for a review of the decision

1. Eklavya met the chief minister on March 3, 2002. They were given an assurance that a review would be undertaken as the first step towards a state level expansion of the programme.
2. The chief minister made a similar declaration on the floor of the Vidhan Sabha.
3. A meeting was conducted on April 1, 2002 between Eklavya and the Principal Secretary Education U.K. Samal, Gopalkrishnan, Anita Sharma and Commissioner of Public Instruction Dubey. Eklavya was asked to submit a detailed review note about HSTP, focusing on its strengths and weaknesses.
4. Eklavya submitted the review note on June 5, 2002 and asked for a response to the note.
5. Eklavya met Gopalkrishnan and Amita Sharma on July 3, 2002 where they were told that an assessment report had been prepared which showed HSTP in a poor light. Some parts of the report were shared with Eklavya but the entire report was not given even when Eklavya asked for a copy. Eklavya was told a decision on HSTP would be taken shortly.
6. Eklavya had a brief meeting with the chief minister on July 10, 2002 where they were given a fresh assurance that a larger meeting of concerned officials would be convened to arrive at a decision on the future of HSTP, including its state level expansion.
7. On July 11, 2002, the news came from Harda that a copy of the order to the Hoshangabad collector, closing down the HSTP, had been circulated to the schools in that district as a closure order
8. The chief minister told the press on July 12, 2002 in response to a question during a function in Hoshangabad that HSTP had been closed down.
9. The closure order reached the DEO in Hoshangabad on July 16, 2002 and specifically mentions that HSTP has been closed down only in Hoshangabad district. Copies of this letter were marked to the collectors of all the other concerned districts.
10. Eklavya received a copy of the government’s assessment report on HSTP on July 18, 2002.
11. Eklavya came to know of another letter to the MP Text Book Corporation despatched on July 6 and marked to all the concerned collectors. This letter compounded the confusion about the closure of HSTP.
12. Four members of the State Advisory Board on Education wrote to the chief minister on July 23, 2002 calling for an in-depth review of HSTP by an expert committee.