(Point by point response by Vinod Raina to the Note circulated by R.Gopalakrishnan, Secretary to the Chief Minister, Government of Madhya Pradesh, detailing the Government’s case for closing down HSTP. Original note in Times New Roman, responses in Arial font (bold), as in this paragraph.)

 

 

 

Rejection of the Curriculum of Eklavya Implemented by it in the District of Hoshangabad by the District Planning Committee of Hoshangabad: Report on Assessment of Performance and Options

 

 

1

Background: Facts

  1. Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme was started by an NGO — Eklavya in Madhya Pradesh in 1972 (earlier called Kishore Bharti) in 16 middle schools of Hoshangabad district. It is being implemented for the last 30 years (1972-2002) at the middle school level i.e., Classes 6-8. The programme now covers all the middle schools in the district of Hoshangabad (which now has been broken up into 2 districts of Hoshangabad and Harda) and 99 selected schools in 13 other districts. The List showing number of schools in each district is given on Annexure-A. In these schools Eklavya ran its own curriculum and was given the freedom to conduct its own examination/evaluation at the 8th Class level.
  2. Response : The factual mistakes in this opening paragraph called ‘Background: Facts’ is itself very revealing about the total lack of understanding about the program by Gopalakrishnan/GoMP (since it is not clear whether this is a note of Gopalakrishnan or of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, it shall be referred to as Gopalakrishnan/GoMP). HSTP was not started by Eklavya, nor was Eklavya earlier called Kishore Bharati, an organization that is distinctly different from Eklavya. This history is very critical in understanding the subsequent details and the nature of relationship between the Government and the collaborating NGO’s, and is therefore being presented in some detail.

    HSTP was started by two organizations, Friends Rural Centre (FRC) and Kishore Bharati (KB) with the permission and in collaboration with the Madhya Pradesh Government in sixteen rural middle schools of Hoshangabad district in 1972. Groups of scientists from Delhi University and the Tata Institute for Fundamental Research joined the process, the DU group through a formal process in the University. The permission allowed the two organizations, FRC and KB, to work out an alternative method of teaching science in these schools, but, and this is important, without changing the syallabus. The schools were not ‘handed over’ to the organizations in management or administrative terms. The teaching of all other subjects continued in the usual manner, and the two organizations had no say in that. The two organizations therefore acted as resource agencies for the purpose of experimenting towards an activity and discovery based science teaching, as had been attempted in the Harvard Science Project in the US and the Nuffield Science Program in Britain. The Nuffield Program had been adapted to the Municipal Schools of Bombay by the Homi Bhabha Science Centre, and the objective was to adopt its principles of activity and discovery based learning, tailored to the child’s physical, social and cultural environment, in rural areas.

    After a joint assessment by the NCERT, through its Regional College of Education (RIE), Bhopal, and the GoMP, which found the program worthy of extension, the program was expanded to cover all the middle schools of Hoshangabad district in 1978. RIE officially became an additional partner at this stage. By 1980, the need to expand the program further geographically was constantly voiced in meetings between the partners — GoMP, Friends Rural Centre, Kishore Bharati, Delhi University, TIFR and the RIE. It was also keenly felt that similar creative methods and pedagogies need to be worked out for the primary classes and for other subjects too. The need was therefore felt for a new institution that could handle all these tasks on a full time basis, in partnership with the Government, since the two institutions, FRC and KB had many other programs and priorities. A proposal for such a new institution was drafted, and presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, the then Member of the Planning Commission, called a meeting of all stakeholders and possible partners — MHRD, NCERT, UGC, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Madhya Pradesh, private sector like the House of Tatas, and of course KB, resource persons from Delhi University, TIFR etc, in 1981, to consider the proposal. The GoMP was represented at the meeting by the then Education Secretary, Ashok Vajpayee. The meeting unanimously endorsed the proposal, and the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India and the Government of Madhya Pradesh agreed to provide financial assistance to the new institution in the ratio two-thirds and one-third respectively. It was through such a process of partnership between various agencies, Governmental and Voluntary, that the new institution — EKLAVYA — was set up in 1982. UGC chipped in through an unprecedented step of providing Fellowships to people working in Universities and Colleges for three years to work at this new institution. (As a case in point, I initially shifted to MP on such a fellowship from Delhi University, before resigning from my job from the University later). The partnership bore fruit rapidly as the HSTP was extended to school complexes of 13 other districts by 1986 and new curriculum was initaiated for class 1 to 5 and for social sciences, classes 6- 8. The GoMP was therefore an active supporter in the formation of EKLAVYA. It is therefore strange that this Gopalakrishnan/GoMP note should have factual inaccuracies in its very first paragraph titled ‘Background Facts’!

    Regarding the sentence ‘….Eklavya ran its own curriculum … and its own examination’; this too is factually incorrect. Over the years, Eklavya and other resource institutions, including the State SCERT, have worked out the curriculum together, and it was vetted by the Education Department of the GoMP, went through the due process of committees etc and was notified, as all other Governmental educational materials, books etc are. It was through such notifications, that the Text Book Corporation of the state Government printed the books for distribution. The new examination system, shunning rote learning, was similarly implemented through due processes of state rules and laws. The program therefore was a part and parcel of the state’s Education Department, and not, in formal terms, of Eklavya. And that was because of an inherent objective and philosophy — to help improve the quality of the existing Government school system, particularly in rural areas, rather than set up parallel schools. The idea has always been to help improve the mainstream. It was this objective, and not the objective of setting up parallel schools that made the Planning Commission and all other bodies, including the Government of Madhya Pradesh, to come together to help set up Eklavya.

  3. The District Planning Committee, Hoshangabad took a decision on 07.02.2002 that the HSTP programme should now be replaced by the Science programme and textbooks of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. This decision was reportedly made on the ground of difficulties faced by children who were forced to study on the Eklavya curriculum upto Class 8 and had to move to the standard curriculum in higher classes. Unhappy with this decision of the DPC, representatives of Eklavya met the Chief Minister to plead for continuation of their curriculum. The Chief Minister held a meeting on 3rd March 2002 with Minister in charge of Hoshangabad district, representatives of Eklavya and officials of the School Education Department. A decision was taken in this meeting that the useful aspects of HSTP programme should be identified and sought to be assimilated in the main curriculum.

Response : The DPC did so on the basis of the complaint of the BJP MLA from Itarsi. It is common knowledge that the program has met with stiff opposition from BJP elements all through these years, and the basis of such opposition is not educational but ideological. When this party was in power between 1990 and 1992, their elements attacked the Dewas office of Eklavya, burnt publications publicly, and put a ban on their distribution. Before they could notify the closure of the program, their Government was dismissed. The complaint to the DPC is at best frivolous. Prof. M.G.K.Menon has in fact sent a letter to the State Government answering the frivolous charges in that complaint, and has asked the DPC to respond to his letter. Why wasn’t that done? Does the DPC have a better understanding of issues of science education then the eminent Prof. Menon, an ex-Minister of Science and Technology of the country?

Secondly, the question is, does the DPC have powers to take decisions on issues that involve professional expertise regarding pedagogy, content and method? One could ask the question the other way around — suppose the DPC of a district proposed its own curriculum for a district, and passed a resolution to that effect. By the logic of this case, would Gopalakrihnan or GoMP clarify whether the resolution would be binding on the Government. Which would therefore mean that in principle, each district, if it so desires can have its own curriculum. Definitely a desirable principle, but yet, the state government, in spite of its avowed promotion of decentralization is actually supporting the closure of a district specific program like HSTP, in favour of a centralized mainstream. Sounds very very strange. Wouldn’t the Government have to examine the demand of a district specific curriculum through educational experts? If yes, then how come the closure resolution does not need a similar process? The demand of Eklavya at the March 3 meeting was to set up a group of experts to look into the issue, but that task was effectively done by a group of bureaucrats. Only such a non-expert group could come to an un-educational decision: to identify what elements of an activity and discovery based approach can be extended to the state. Quite simply, you have to extend the entire activity and discovery based approach, how can it be subdivided! The subsequent review is therefore educationally meaningless, and a mindless bureaucratic exercise.

 

2

Attempt at Review

2.1. To identify such useful aspects of Eklavya experience the School Education Department invited Eklavya for a discussion on key learning over the last 30 years. It was felt that this Review should be done in a participatory manner. Here an alternative model was evaluated and such alternatives can always question the normative framework adopted for evaluation. So Eklavya was asked to develop their own responses to the four following questions:

Response: A sheer waste of time, and fogging the issue, since the MHRD review committee did all that and more in 1994. However, if that had to be built upon, the best procedure would have been to appoint a similar committee again, which would work participatively with the GoMP and Eklavya.

 

    1. Given below is a summary of Eklavya’s response to these four issues which was presented by them to the Principal Secretary School Education on 1.4.02

Objective of the Programme as stated by Eklavya

The main aim of this programme as stated by Eklavya was remoulding school science education to fulfill universally accepted national goals and educational objectives. HSTP has attempted to base science education on the principles of 'learning by discovery', 'learning through activity' and 'learning from the environment’ in contrast to the prevailing textbook- centred 'learning by rote' method.

Salient features of work done (1972-2002) as stated by Ekalavya

Strengths as Eklavya perceives them

Eklavya perceives its main strength as children's enjoyment of their teaching-learning processes and greater interaction between teachers and children.

Weaknesses as Eklavya perceives them

According to Eklavya the major weaknesses have been

 

2.1. On the weaknesses as indicated above the following observations are pertinent:

Response: As pointed out earlier, Eklavya does not run ‘its own curriculum’. The management of the school is not in the hands of Eklavya. However, since Eklavya works closely in the field, in the villages where the schools are, as partners of the teachers, all the flexibility and effective transaction methods are in place through local solutions. Very often, it is the rules and regulations of the education department that come in the way; time and again necessitating constant local level interventions

Response : There is a total lack of understanding on part of Gopalakrishnan/GoMP, evident through these observations. The point is not that it is not done — that is what the elaborate system of monthly teacher meetings, school follow-up and feedback collation of the HSTP does. This is the day-to-day, bread and butter work of the program. The point being made is that sustainable institutional mechanisms for peer interactions amongst teachers, that are effective and meaningful, and not mere gup-shup, are a challenging task, and need to be constantly evolved.

Response: How very ridiculous and perhaps deliberately distorted observation! One says deliberately because Gopalakrishnan was actively involved during the conceptualization of the children’s science magazine, Chakmak. It is another matter that he had to be told in 1985 that Eklavya was not interested in partnering the state Government in its publication after he raised objections to Eklavya’s sustained work in the biggest science-society issue of the entire World — the Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984. But Chakmak, is spite of all odds, got underway in July 1985 and has appeared every month since then. It has set a new standard in linking science to rural children, their life, creativity and imagination. It has also been a major medium of linking teachers in far off villages to science, and its circulation at one time touched forty thousand copies, a phenomenon for any Hindi publication in the country. It was again the state Government that took the unimaginative decision to discontinue sending it to schools, for apparently no reason. But it is still published, and has admirers and readers in the remotest areas of not just MP but the entire Hindi belt. We won’t talk of the awards it has won, because we don’t think of them as great yardsticks of review and evaluation; unlike the MP Government that has splash advertisements for the few minor award it has got.

The strongest societal link of HSTP has however been the institution of Sawaliram. A fictitous character that replies to children’s questions sent by post — the sheer number of questions received and replied to during these years would be some kind of a record — it is thousands upon thousands! And it was immortalized as the cover of Bal-Vaigyanik, the HSTP workbook, drawn by a resource teacher of the program. The famous science TV show on Doordarshan took its que of the question-answer session from Sawaliram.

Combine with these the Chakmak science clubs set up in village after village, the annual cycle of bal-melas, the water and air testing campaigns by children and the picture of out of school links of HSTP would seem to be unparalleled anywhere in the country. In fact, the member organizations of the All India People’s Science Network, including KSSP, took inspiration from such activities, as did visiting groups from many foreign countries, including China. One could write a whole book on the out of school links of the HSTP!

Really it is hard to believe that such an observation has been made so irresponsibly, using the judgment - ‘major failing’.

Response: Gopalakrishnan/GoMP is perhaps unaware what happens on the ground. Teachers are ‘rewarded’ with choice postings, and punished for bad results, low enrolments and so on. The point that was being highlighted was that the best teachers of the HSTP, who have even gone as resource teachers to other states, and have actively made contributions to curriculum development get no encouragement or pat in the back. Of course that should happen in any system, mainstream or otherwise. For example, the Education Department has no clue that it has about 150 teachers from the HSTP that are the best trainers in the entire country, and have been utilized by other states for the purpose. But in their own state they are unnoticed. This affects their morale and motivation, which takes a long process to be built up.

2.2. However it is the strengths of the programme that matter for any assimilation and so a closer scrutiny is called for on its reported strengths.

 

 

 

 

3

Assessment of Eklavya’s Work

A fair and objective assessment of any enterprise in education can be done only on the basis of the learning outcomes of children. What have been the learning outcomes of Eklavya’s intervention in the last 30 years in Hoshangabad district or how have the children fared? With the presumption that children ought to have done substantially better because of a reportedly superior methodology of teaching and learning, the data was examined. The findings are given below.

Response: Annual examinations are unconnected to the learning outcomes of children. For example, the country-wide learning outcome survey of 1994 by NCERT, and similar surveys by NIEPA have never relied on examination results. Therefore all that follows is academically pretty meaningless.

    1. Do children in Eklavya run schools using HSTP curriculum in Hoshangabad do better in Science in the Tenth Board examination in comparison with children in other government schools?
    2. Eklavya curriculum is limited to teaching in Classes 6-8. Here it has been permitted to have its own evaluation at the Class 8 level which unlike normal government schools permits consultation with text books at the time of examination. Any comparison can therefore be made only at the Class 10 level of children coming from 2 streams, one from government schools using the normal curriculum and those of Hoshangabad using the "superior" Ekalavya curriculum in Science. Table 2 gives the better performers among districts based on the results of the Tenth Board Examination of 2001-2002 in Science. Results show that Hoshangabad (including Harda) is not among the top five districts, nor among the top ten districts, not even in the top fifteen districts in the state.

      Response : For the same reason mentioned in the observation, that class 8 exams being different, they can not be compared, applies to class 10 too. To find out if HSTP children are any better, class 10 examinations, held in a manner that is alien to HSTP children, does not test their analytical, problem solving and experimental skills, which are the fundamental traits of science learning, and which they learn up to class 8. So whether Hoshangabad is at the 3rd place or the 33rd place in class 10 examination is a fictitious game, of no particular value. At no stage of the HSTP program, in the beginning in 1972, in 1978 or in 1983 was it the objective or claim of HSTP that HSTP children will do better in the traditional exams at class 10, 12, or PET/PMT. So how are these comparisons relevant.

      An educationally sound method would be to test the cognitive understanding of the concepts of science, between HSTP and non-HSTP students of the same class. Unknown to the framers of the Gopalakrishnan/GoMP note, such time consuming and laborious testing and analysis was in fact done for a Ph.D. thesis, using the well-known TOSRA method. It is now available as a book — ‘New Trends in Science Curriculum’, by Aejaz Masih, ISBN 81-86562-65-6, distributed by D.K.Publishers. The book reports comparative results of TOSRA tests in concept formation between HSTP and non-HSTP children. The concept formation of HSTP children is reported to be significantly better as compared to non-HSTP children

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      Table 2

      Districts graded on the basis of Percentage of Students Scoring over 60% in Science in Tenth Board Examination 2001-2002

      Rank ( in Descending order of Performance)

      Name of District

      Percentage of Children who have scored over 60% in Science

      1

      Betul

      23.54

      2.

      Khandwa

      22.30

      3

      Bhopal

      21.54

      4

      Shajapur

      21.20

      5

      Neemuch

      20.60

      6

      Indore

      20.20

      7

      Damoh

      19.92

      8

      Dhar

      19.70

      9

      Khargone

      19.37

      10

      Balaghat

      18.70

      11

      Barwani

      18.23

      12

      Sidhi

      18.20

      13

      Jhabua

      18.11

      14

      Ratlam

      17.20

      15

      Datia

      17.11

      (Source: Examination Results 2002: Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal: Government of Madhya Pradesh)

      Hoshangabad (together with Harda) do not come within the first fifteen districts in terms of performance in Science. This data calls into serious question any impact in terms of learning outcomes from the HSTP. Added to this is the fact that 69.62 percent of children in Hoshangabad scored less than 50% in Science, which to some extent may explain the dissatisfaction, expressed by the DPC.

      Response: What about districts ranked from 17 to 45? Since they are worse than Hoshangabad, using the same logic, shouldn’t their science course also be changed? Has the Government assessed the dissatisfaction in such districts? If their DPC’s express dissatisfaction, will the Government allow them to bring in other methods of learning of science than the mainstream that is used there now. Or is the judgment reserved only to HSTP, and not to NCERT and SCERT curriculum, why? Does the State Government have any clue to the dissatisfaction to books and curriculum from class 9 to 12, which is rampant in the state amongst parents and teachers? What is it doing to meet such dissatisfaction?

       

       

       

       

       

    3. Has Eklavya’s educational intervention made any significant impact in terms of over-all performance of learning outcomes of children at the School Level in Hoshangabad? Has Hoshangabad emerged as a leading district in performance at the School level?
    4. Irrespective of the lack of impact in learning outcomes in Science, it is worthwhile examining if there has been an improvement in over-all performance of children in terms of learning outcomes as demonstrated from performance of children in examination at the Tenth Board level.

      Seventeen districts which have had a pass percentage of over 40% is given below. Hoshangabad (even when Harda is included and averaged) does not figure in this list.

      Table 3

      Rank

      District

      Percentage of Children passing Tenth Board

      1

      Betul

      59.37

      2

      Chindwara

      56.57

      3

      Neemuch

      55.95

      4

      Khandwa

      52.54

      5

      Khargone

      48.60

      6

      Ratlam

      48.24

      7

      Chatarpur

      47.40

      8

      Ujjain

      45.70

      9

      Seoni

      44.61

      10

      Datia

      44.14

      11

      Gwalior

      43.86

      12

      Shajapur

      43.44

      13

      Sagar

      43.22

      14

      Mandsaur

      43.15

      15

      Dhar

      42.13

      16

      Bhopal

      40.97

      17

      Jhabua

      40.23

      (Source: Results of the Board Examination 2002: Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal)

      Table 3 reveals very disquieting features. It clearly shows that the educational initiatives mounted under HSTP over 30 years have not been able to make Hoshangabad even an average performer in terms of learning outcomes as measured from indicators related to School Education.

      Response: Which, as stated earlier are fictitious for the kind of comparison that is being attempted here. If TOSRA tests are used as the yardstick, which makes sense, then Hoshangabad children have much better conceptual understanding of science, something not measured by any of the examinations the Gopalakrishnan/GoMP report relies upon. But these are issues for educational experts and not bureaucrats and managers. That is why an expert committee is necessary.

       

    5. Have Children from Hoshangabad done outstandingly well in PET/PPT/PMT examinations?
    6. Though the Assessment Team was reluctant to admit this as an indicator to prove or disprove HSTP performance as parents of children are interested in school results and because such competitive examinations are often more indicative of out-of-school preparation engaged in by students, it was nevertheless examined to see if there was any dramatic difference. The data shows that there is no such dramatic difference. The three districts given below are comparable in terms of educational indicators and Table 4 below shows the PET/PPT/PMT results in these three districts. Results show Balaghat doing better and Sagar doing worse in comparison.

      Table -4

      District

      Session

      PET

      PPT

      PMT

      Average

      Total Average Result

      Balaghat

      1996

      2.41

      4.8

      0.65

      7.75

      8.87

      1997

      2.34

      5.19

      0.80

      8.34

      1998

      3.44

      6.53

      0.51

      10.54

      Sagar

      1996

      2.45

      0.91

      1.45

      4.91

      6.51

      1997

      4.42

      1.94

      0.91

      7.28

      1998

      4.71

      1.45

      1.09

      7.34

      Hoshangabad

      1996

      2.20

      4.26

      0.94

      7.41

      8.01

      1997

      2.60

      4.34

      0.71

      7.65

      1998

      2.20

      4.26

      1.18

      8.99

      However one needs also to compare Hoshangabad performance with districts without HSTP curriculum. The Professional Board Examination results of the district Hoshangabad are lower than a non-HSTP district like Balaghat (same literacy-level district). The results should have been much higher as the reported focus of HSTP was on skill application and comprehension.

      Response: What do PET/PMT tests have to do with skill application and comprehension?

       

    7. Has Eklavya’s work made any difference to education-related indicators of social development in Hoshangabad?

Though Eklavya does not stake any claims for having made any significant impact on the social development in the district, it is nevertheless important to examine this issue. Since school-related outcomes have been examined on 3.1 and 3.2, and 3.3, here those indicators that are expected to be impacted from a powerful educational initiative of 30 years vintage is captured. If there has been a major educational initiative in Hoshangabad which sought to connect education with society, two good indicators to measure impact would be the movement in terms of Literacy growth and Gender empowerment. On both counts Hoshangabad is a case of less-than-average performance. This is striking and completely knocks the bottom out of any impact Eklavya has had outside the Classroom. In fact 33 districts whose literacy rate was lower than Hoshangabad in 1991 achieved a higher growth rate in 2001 (Census 2001). Table 5 shows percentage growth of literacy in Hoshangabad and its neighbouring districts and most neighbouring districts have surpassed it in growth of literacy.

Table 5

Growth in Literacy between 1991-2001

District

Literacy rate in 91 Census %

Literacy rate in 2001 Census %

Percentage Growth in Literacy

Raisen

40.76

72.76

32

Narsinghpur

55.65

78.34

22.69

Betul

45.89

66.87

20.98

Hoshangabad

54.11

70.36

16.25

That it has not impacted on social processes in any significant manner is evidenced not only from indicators like increase in literacy (which have not risen in comparison with neighbouring districts that have not had this additional input) but also from other proxy measures like the Gender Development Index. It is unfortunate that while Hoshangabad in terms of HDI based on Index of Deprivation ranks 13th in the state (undivided Madhya Pradesh) it slips in Gender Development Index to becoming the 28th in the state (Source: MPHDR 1998). Clearly the educational efforts have not had the reach or the scale to impact on any larger societal empowerment.

Response: If these indicators — Literacy and Gender Empowerment - are at all related to school education (Gopalakrishnan/GoMP ought to know that in spite of the ‘Kerela Model’ and Amartya Sen/Mehboubal Haque stress, investigations into such links today are a matter of great debate amongst researchers, since these links are no longer so simply apparent), they have to do more with increasing access to education, which is not a stated objective of the HSTP. In fact that is the job of the GoMP, and if at all, all the results would indicate the failure of the GoMP in increasing the access to education in Hoshangabad.

4

Summary of Review Findings

The above data incontrovertibly shows the inefficacy of Eklavya intervention in curriculum to improve learning outcomes in (a) Science (Response: substantiated by TOSRA tests) or (b) general performance at the Tenth Board level. (Response: neither a claim nor an objective of HSTP, particularly because of the examination method) The only remaining argument in its favour is the " enjoyment of children" which is an intangible and an inadequate index of the quality of learning.

Even after 30 years HSTP has not shown any significant increase in the learning outcomes of the children when measured by common standards. (Response: which are patently unsuitable and even wrong for the purpose) A child who has a better input designed to stimulate comprehension and enquiry should be able to perform far better than children who do not have such an advantage, as is a common experience in comparing a good private school with an average government one. (Response: Again a false comparison. Private school children may look smart, sound glib but that doesn’t mean they have better cognitive abilities. Most likely, they come from families where the home environment and parental care in education helps them much more than what the school does for them). There is an ethical responsibility of the State government for its schools to ensure that the children attain satisfactory learning levels that are measurable by standard and universally acceptable methods (Response: Which are not annual examination results) to equip the children to acquire the eligibility to effectively negotiate post-school education. If HSTP is not creating a significantly higher learning outcome even after 30 years than the mainstream curriculum, (Response: a point still unsubstantiated) then its contribution to mainstream schooling does not become evident. (It is ironic that HSTP should be seeking to establish its parity with mainstream outcomes, rather than confidently demonstrating its superiority) (Response: what is ironic is that children unaccustomed to the rote learning and memory exams do nearly as well as the others. Let a test be conducted on HSTP norms; that will settle the issue).

Apart from its inability to intervene meaningfully in Education, it has also proved too weak to contribute to any larger objective of societal change. In Eklavya’s favour it must be said that the problem primarily is with the nature of intervention: intervening in the curriculum and teacher’s training in Science in Classes 6-8 cannot achieve very much on its own. It clearly proves that the failure of the experiment is on account of this structural weakness of the programme.

5

Eklavya Model: Flawed in Structure

What is the nature of Eklavya intervention? It intervenes in the curriculum of Classes 6-8 in a variety of ways (as given in Section 4). The entire nature of intervention is limited to the Classroom which includes the text and the teacher (see inner circle of the diagram).

Diagram 1

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This circle of Text+Teacher exists in another circle of the "school". Eklavya can only have a limited impact on the school because this school itself is enveloped in the larger circle of "government". This government exits in the democracy that we practice within the outermost circle of " society".

The innocence of the Eklavya model is that it seems to think it can achieve meaningful educational change or meaningful social change by merely intervening in the innermost circle. If after 30 years the programme has not been effective, the fault lies less in the implementation and more in the original conception. To put it starkly, Eklavya as an Non-Governmental Organization are "tenants" in a very small part of the government’s public schooling system. Therefore their prescriptions for change based on the small sample would have limited empirical validity for the larger system even if, unlike the data presented here, its performance was oustanding. The issue of illegitimacy of space that Eklavya has occupied in government schools though historical is now an issue that would be dangerous to leave unsettled. Seventy-third Constitution Amendment has clearly passed on the management of Elementary Education to local bodies and any external intervention needs to be with their concurrence. The Government of Madhya Pradesh has been ahead of other states in realising the vision of decentralized management of education. It is these decentralised bodies that have questioned Eklavya’s curriculum.

The fault with the Eklavya-type of intervention is that it is seeking to alter a space that it does not own. Just as a tenant in a small part of the building has no right to alter the design of the building, Eklavya, even if it had performed well would not have the legitimacy to ask for the entire design to be changed on their pattern. This has been the reason why agencies that seek to introduce alternative visions of education "create their own schools" and we have such experiments in Madhya Pradesh also like the alternative schools of Shyam Bahadur Namre in Shahdol. (Response: Wrong and misleading information. Namreji’s, society, Shram Niketan, of which I am the Chairperson, submitted a project to the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shala Mission, RGPSM, to experiment for creating teaching — learning materials, just like Eklavya, for which 20 Apna Schools were established around Jamdi. Gradually, the RGPSM, through budgetary cuts and similar actions tried to force him to merely run the schools and give up on creating teaching-learning materials. This caused a crisis, and he was forced to discontinue the project, hand over the schools to RGPSM, and contract with a new funding agency, Aide de Action, to continue with the curriculum development work). In that sense Eklavya has chosen a " lazy" method of not taking the trouble to create its own schools but take part-tenancy in a part of the larger government system whose policies have to represent the popular or democratic will. There was no other instance of any NGO being given entry in a public schooling system to run its own curriculum in India. When this issue of illegitimacy of presence was raised, Eklavya claimed that it is precisely this fact that makes the intervention unique. It is not so unique anymore. Recently the Government of Goa was reported to have given away a majority of 150 schools identified as having poor quality to a an outside institution linked to an obscurantist ideology. A model in which government public schools are open for entry to any institution to "experiment" their curriculum is in the extreme fraught with such dangers.

Decentralization in fact ought to open up more opportunities for NGOs like Eklavya to better realise their educational vision of connecting with the local context. What decentralization has done is in one sense merge three outer circles of Society, Government and School by allowing for local management. This may not have happened in an ideal way. However in the new post decentralization model (Diagram 2) society that the Eklavya model ought to influence through inside-classroom processes has been brought closer to the school in terms of ownership and management.

Diagram 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is ironic that Eklavya is having more problems post-decentralization and this has at least partly to do with wrong legitimization at entry-time, through bureaucratic fiat. Now that people’s representatives are legitimate managers of basic education, Ekalavya would have to learn to do business with them. After all, it is their children who are involved. After the Panchayat Raj system was established and powers in the area of basic education delegated to panchayats it appears there has been no effort by Eklavya to even inform not to mention convince Panchayat Raj representatives in Hoshangabad of the nature of their educational intervention.

Response: This section contains an amazing amount of wooly-headed glib nonsense that one would have never expected from a supposedly serious note, which is the basis of closing down one of the most respectable educational efforts in the country. It raises a number of serious questions to which Gopalakrishnan/GoMP need to be held accountable to.

To begin with, politicians and bureaucrats seem to be turning to physics rather alarmingly to hide their faults — Narendra Modi invoked Newton’s third law to justify the action-reaction genocide in Gujerat, and now, the Gopalakrishnan/GoMP note is attempting some sort of nuclear model to explain the structure and dynamics of the society and governance. It is somewhat shameful that one is forced to engage with this juvenile stuff.

If the HSTP school is somewhere inside the core of the atom and the society is in the outer orbit, and the core can not influence the orbit — which seems to be the essence of the ‘flawed model’ argument, then where pray are the non-HSTP schools, the colleges, the Universities. How are they linked to the society — or one may ask, are institutions of any kind outside the society, or a part of the society? Which society is bereft of institutions? So what nonsense are these concentric circles, where the society is some stratosphere, enveloping everything else. By this logic, any educational institution, Governmental or non-governmental is cut off from the society. So why not close them all, and leave society to escape through the ozone hole into the heavens!

But wait a minute, GoMP has found the magical link between the society and schools — the 73rd amendment - voila! So the missing link has been found in Madhya Pradesh and the world is saved. And what is the nature of this link? As per the note, it is the management by panchayats. So everyone go out, no one is required anymore. But wait a minute — does the panchayat make and decide the curriculum — no!, does it decide on teaching — learning materials — no!!, does it decide on examination methodologies — no!!! Who does all that — the SCERT and the NCERT, sitting in Bhopal and New Delhi. Are they controlled by the panchayats? Not to my knowledge. So where do they sit in these concentric circles? No idea. So what has been decentralized — the burden and responsibility of managing the school. What remains centralized — the essence, the regulatory powers — to decide on curriculum, books, examinations, the works; that constitutes education. So what are these concentric nonsensical circles? So where is/was HSTP? There, in the district, the village, not just managing administration, but creating curriculum, teaching learning materials with the local teachers and community. Isn’t that decentralization of curriculum and capacity building at local levels? Not according to the doctrine of concentric circles.

Forget HSTP — what about Colleges and Universities, which certainly aren’t with the panchayats. Then they are the most guilty institutions, and must be closed forthwith along with HSTP.

In this thesis of decentralization, what happens if a village panchayat, or DPC calls for the beheading of a girl and a boy because they wish to marry, but belong to different castes. Because of the dissatisfaction in the society, as supposedly with HSTP, the DPC or panchayat may do so, as happens in Haryana and Rajasthan from time to time. What does the concentric circles theory say about this? There is another mathematical term called the ‘operator’, you apply an operator on numbers and they will change along the laws of the operator. So ‘decentralisation’ is the magical operator, and applied to anything, it will necessarily do good to the society, as per the Gopalakrishnan?GoMP thesis. So if we say:

Decentralize Corruption

Decentralise Prostitution

Decentralise Idiocy

Apparently each transformation, according to the concentric circles theory would be a desired transformation.

This is not an attempt to make fun of decentralization of political power, since it is a necessary and important need of our governance system. It is just that the GoMP seems to have no clue, as per this note what it implies and how it must be applied; particularly in relation to institutions, of the civil society or otherwise.

We then have the other more disturbing theory in this section. That the government is the landlord, and groups like Eklavya are tenants, occupying ‘illegitimate’ space that they grabbed fraudulently. That is not only a very serious charge and denunciation of Eklavya, but a very dangerous political theory. The government in a democracy is supposed to be the representative of the people, and the primacy is supposed of the people and not of the representatives. The people have the right to make and change the Government, or give space to the representatives for governance, and not vice-versa. However, where as in one breath this note fumes in favour of decentralization, in the other it contends that a democratically elected government is in fact the landlord, and the civil society and its institutions are mere tenants, obviously in a feudal relationship. This is not very different from what the dictator Parvez Musharaff has been saying in Pakistan, that democracy has turned out to be junk for Pakistan, and it is the Military that is the salvation of the people, the landlord, and good governance shall flow from it.

The argument for closure of HSTP seems therefore to have little to do with educational criterions; the idea seems to be to evict Eklavya from its tenancy rights, which, as the note claims, were fraudulently managed in the first place. The GoMP has total amnesia regarding the fact that it was a supportive party with the Planning Commission for establishing Eklavya, along with other groups. Eklavya, was therefore the link between the society at grassroots level, where it was working, with academic institutions where it derived ideas and expertise from, and Government institutions, who supported its formation. Is that a Landlord-Tenant relationship, or a relationship of collaborative partnership? This thesis would then seem to apply to all civil society groups and institutions. Since this seems to be an official note of the GoMP, these theories of the state and civil society cannot be ignored, no matter how badly they are written. This would require that these ideas of the GoMP be widely circulated and debated, also in judicial and legislative forums of the country. Essentially, what is being said is that the democratic, geographical, cultural, social and creative space of the country is owned by the landlord, the Government, and citizen’s and their groups are mere tenants, who can exist at the whim and fancy of the landlord, the Government.

The models that are totally crazy and flawed are those that have been proposed in this note.

Based on the above Government decided to accept the demand of the Hoshangabad DPC to have children in Hoshangabad also adopt the main curriculum. Ekalavya curriculum could continue as a supplementary curriculum.

 

Response : The decision seems to have nothing to do with any educational issue, but to the perceived right of the landlord to throw out the tenant. It is also is an acceptance of the fact that the parroting of decentralization is an empty rhetoric of the GoMP, and it prefers the centralized main curriculum, making nonsense of the concentric circles theory. Obviously, all this cannot end here.

 

Response to Dr. Vinod Raina from R. Gopalakrishnan(/GOMP?)

 

        1. We do not think that HSTP is above critique. Dr. Raina obviously thinks so. In a democracy every one has a right to criticise an action that happens in the public space run with public funds.
        2. The DPC ( District Planning Committee) is a democratically elected institution. HSTP is a District-based programme. Dr. Raina while dismissing the DPC resolution skirts the issue and asks " Does it mean every DPC should decide curriculum?". But should not the DPC Hoshangabad have the right to comment on the special curriculum in that district alone on those very grounds " Should every district have its curriculum?" DPC Hoshangabad felt that they have a right to the main curriculum and "experimentation" should be supplementary. They are ordinary people who want that their children also should do well in examinations. We fail to understand how a reportedly superior methodology cannot deliver on basics. Dr. Raina thinks parents of Hoshangabad have no right to choose the education that their children should have. Here is where we suggested that HSTP should rather persuade and not have the programme thrust on unsuspecting parents and children through central fiat.
        3. The issue of the right of DPC to comment on education has been settled by the Constitution Amendment (73/ 74) and we need not foam in the mouth until such time the Constitution is again amended, if at all.
        4. Readers may please not that we have only used results of examinations to measure performance —information that is in public space. Not opinions. We did not undertake this review on our own. Government got into this only after Ekalavya represented that GOMP overturn the DPC decision. We looked for reasons and had to finally agree that the DPC had every right to reject a curriculum which did not prepare their children to do well in public examinations. 69% children were not scoring above 50% even in Science. They are not willing to accept ( and we tend to agree) that a " higher knowledge of science" DISABLES a child to undertake ordinary tests. Here we are talking about ordinary people with ordinary hopes for their children.
        5. The Government decision merely gives children/parents of Hoshangabad a choice. It does not rule out use of HSTP and schools are free to choose. Freedom to choose is essential in a democracy.
        6. Dr. Raina seems to be harbouring a belief that democratic institutions are good enough only if they suit his point of view. Sadly for him, that is not the framework in which we operate. One can go to the extent of saying that democracy values the principle of
        7. " inclusion" more than "efficiency". Therefore the views of an institution that represents the people at large or includes the people has supremacy over a set of beliefs by a few people, however enlightened they claim to be. The right to define efficiency itself will have to shift to the democratically constituted group. In India we practice a democracy and elected democratic institutions are by definition more privileged over associational institutions of civil society like Ekalavya. Dr. Raina may perhaps consider the idea of "electing a new people".

        8. The usage "landlord" -- his mention not ours–(we merely cited the problem of legitimacy) refers, if at all, to the people. They speak through their representative institutions, DPC, State Government etc.
        9. This perhaps is the key issue that "academic" reviews of HSTP ignore. The presence of HSTP in public schools can be legitimate only if the parents and children want it. It cannot be imposed on the basis of an odd Phd thesis or notes by friendly visitors. Parents of children of Hoshangabad would rather leave the Phd thesis alone and instead expect improvement in children’s academic performance. What do you suggest a democratic government do in such a situation? Bang the Phd thesis on their heads?
        10. Thirty years is too long not to reckon with issues of accountability on performance in programmes where public funds are invested. If felt that HSTP creativity should have no connection with school performance, HSTP ought to create its own schools where parents are informed about the kind of creativity to be expected and therefore willingly adopt such a package as a conscious choice of an alternative pedagogy. That is why we believe the government has chosen the best option possible: retain Ekalavya’s HSTP as a supplementary curriculum on offer to those who would want to take it.
        11. We are tempted to ask how many of our readers have chosen such alternative pedagogic practices for their own children. Why do you think the people of Hoshangabad think differently from us?
        12. We also do not understand the hue and cry. The government has not banned the curriculum or " closed it" as made out by Dr. Raina. It has merely stated that this cannot be the main curriculum in the government schools of Hoshangabad. It is on offer as supplementary and if it is adopted by the people so be it. A final plea to the Dronacharyas like Dr. Raina: Let the Ekalavyas of Hoshangabad have some freedom to choose what they learn.