Revised (FINAL)
(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) and boxed, 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.
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 Bharti, 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
syllabus. 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 needed 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
proposal was endorsed by the then Education Secretary, Ashok Vajpayee and the
GoMP was represented at the meeting by two senior officers Shri Ishwar Das and
Shri S.C. Behar. 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
initiated 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.
2.
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? Not only that, evidence submitted by
Eklavya such as the content analysis of class 9 syllabus and its linkage to the
content used in the HSTP on the one hand and on the other hand enunciation of
the changes brought about in HSTP texts recently in order to improve the
‘‘product and process’’ balance that further addresses
the need for linkage with class 9th and 10th- were not
examined or responded to at all.
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 Gopalakrishnan 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.
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:
· What were the objectives of the programme?
· What has been the work done between 1972-2002?
· What, according to Eklavya has been the key strengths and key weaknesses of its intervention?
· What does Eklavya see/identify as lessons that can be assimilated in the mainstream[1]
Response: A sheer waste of time, and fogging the issue, since the MHRD review committee did all that and more in 1991. 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.
2.2. 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
-
Development of curricula and teaching learning material
-
Teacher training
-
Academic support at school level
-
Resource group building and mobilization
-
Reforming the examination system and evaluation
-
Kit material for school
-
Academic and Administrative structure
-
Extra Curricular inputs
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.
·
It leads to a process of querying that goes beyond
the syllabus and curriculum
·
It develops scientific temper and critical approach
among students.
·
Children learn experimental skills
·
The evaluation system focuses on learning of
scientific skills as applied to everyday situation
·
It supports peer group learning among teachers and
students
·
It helps bridge the gap between schools and
institutions of higher learning
·
Teachers have been involved in teacher training on a
large scale.
Weaknesses as Eklavya perceives them
According to Eklavya the major weaknesses have been
- Science teaching lasts for one or two 40 minute
periods/day so no clear output is visible.
Response: misquoting again - certainly clear outputs are visible as
Eklavya outlines in the section on strengths.
The weakness is that out of school support activities are not regularised and
have remained sporadic.
- No peer support systems emerge among teachers which help in better science
education in the local community.
Response:
misquoting again - Eklavya says “while peer support systems have indeed
emerged, a much larger scale of interactions and mutual learning among teachers
is desirable’’. Eklavya would like to better it’s best and
lists this as weakness due to the intense importance accorded to the issue.
- Not enough has been done to broad base the debate
on the basic nature of science education in the local community
- Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme has no
system of reward or punishment as a result it is unable to influence the
school organization.
- 2.1. On the weaknesses as indicated
above the following observations are pertinent:
· Since Eklavya is running its own curriculum it could have considered flexibly reorganizing time available for a school day to reinforce its teaching: or else it should have organized its textbooks in a way that they are effectively transacted within the planned academic duration of school.
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
· One of the stated objectives of Eklavya is to develop peer support system among teachers so it is very surprising that this should not have developed.
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.
· Similarly HSTP had its origin in the Kishore Bharti programme which perceived science teaching as specific intervention to transform socio-cultural life and to link science with society. This seems an area of critical failure as no energy seems to have spilled out or have been effectively incorporated in the design. It appears that activity-based processes only meant laboratory type of academic activities and not bridging text and life or connecting school and society. This has to be considered a major failing because this was to be the distinct feature of its innovation which was to set it apart from the mainstream.
Response: this
is a misquote – Eklavya in its report said that “there
continues to be widespread adherence to the conventional view of what science
and learning should be’’- just as there continues to be widespread
adherence to the conventional views on what role women need to play in life
primarily - thus GOMP is refusing to view this as a fluid, dynamic process of
social change - a wave in the rising - and is constantly reducing it to an
innovation package which should have been perfected by now.
And 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 awards it has got.
The strongest societal link of HSTP has however been the institution
of Sawaliram. A fictitious 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, Turning Point, took its cue of the question-answer session
from Sawaliram.
Combine with these the science toys manufactured in a workshop in
Harda and distributed in remote rural households, Chakmak science clubs set up
in village after village, the annual cycle of bal-melas, the water and air
testing campaigns by children, 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’.
· HSTP attributes a part of the weakness to not having powers to reward or punish. The mainstream system also does not have a system of reward or punishment. Again this cannot be observed as systemic deficiency considering that the purpose of HSTP was to transform through training and intellectual stimulation and not through the colonial system of rewards and punishments which is not associated even with the mainstream system.
Response: There is no question of the mainstream system ‘’also’’ not having the system of reward and punish- as HSTP is in the mainstream as far as school management goes. HSTP is not being built in a castle in the air. Eklavya wrote “it is unable to influence the school organisation beyond what is possible through moral pressure or the inspiration and excitement of learning new things. If a teacher is unwilling to teach there is little that HSTP can do about it’- read- the mainstream can do about it. Eklavya does not believe in linear magic wands transforming society- a synergy of many forces and factors has to be built and in this sense inability to find ways of accountability among teachers is listed as a weakness in the implementation of the programme.
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 (which, as pointed out, HSTP anyway is in administrative terms) 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.
Eklavya accepted to go through the process of engaging with the class 10
results etc. since at that time it appeared that an academic process of
consultation was on, and not a bureaucratic case for closure was being hatched.
Therefore all that follows is academically pretty meaningless.
3.1.
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?
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?
3.2. 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?
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 |
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.
3.3.
Have
Children from Hoshangabad done outstandingly well in PET/PPT/PMT examinations?
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? In
any case, why is Hoshangabad doing better than Sagar? Why is GOMP ignoring the
45 district ranking Eklavya gave them and pointed out that Hoshangabad was at
the top of all primarily rural districts? What is the desperation to flaunt
such shoddy statistics as given in the three district data above?
3.4. 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.[2]
Response: misquoting again - Eklavya said
‘‘ while various studies have established that HSTP children have a
better grasp of science, it is difficult to establish a causal relationship
between such enhanced understanding and various processes in society. The
methodological problems in undertaking such a study are indeed vast. …..
The changes if any are likely to be delicately nuanced, fine shifts in emphasis.’’
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[3].
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
‘Kerala 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.
Footnote 3 is a
repetition of the Gopalakrishnan/GoMP theme that the BJP MLA’s complaint
to the DPC is an indicator of the dissatisfaction in the community about the
program. Who does the DPC, a nominated body with a Minister as its head,
represent? Since, for all practical purposes, this nominated body supercedes
the elected Zila Panchayat, it is also not clear whether its supremacy vis a
vis the elected Zila Panchayat is legally and constitutionally valid at all.
As for the observation that children who studied HSTP are opposing
it, one wishes the Government functioned as a cohesive Executive and not as
disjointed bureaucrats. About 1800 persons from all over the Hoshangabad
and Harda districts signed the following resolution. About 1200 of these are
students studying between classes 9 to 12 who studied HSTP in the middle
school. In addition to these there were about 150 college students, about 300
parents and 100 teachers who signed this petition:
“The District Planning Committee recommended to close down
Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme in Hoshangabad district
on Feb 7, 2002. We not only believe but have also experienced during
the last few years that " Learning by Doing" is the best and most
interesting method of teaching Science - which is used in Hoshangabad
Science Teaching Programme. So we request the District Planning
Committee
to review the decision and that it should recommend that the Hoshangabad
Science Teaching Programme is continued.”
The petitions were submitted to the Collector, Hoshangabad as he is
the Secretary of DPC on 20th February, 7th March and 16th
March 2002. When the last lot was submitted, the collector returned these with
the following signed note - "Why are they
politicizing the whole issue? Where is the provision for referendum?"
These 1800 signatories were from the following 40 villages/towns:
Itarsi Jujharpur Botegaon Hoshangabad Malakheri
Davakala Dolariya Shahpur Sohagpur Resalpur
Hirankhera Nitaya Piparia Rohna Sonasanvary
Sukhtawa Silari Mehragaon Kesla Pachmarhi
Harda Uda Rizgaon Pipariya Chanderi Mandla Rani
Pipariya Panjarakalan Hirankheda Pothia Tugariya
Parsapani Bagdatawa Matapura Amupura SeoniMalwa
Saket
(Mothia) Pamli
(New Yard) Semari
Harchand
The logic is extremely peculiar – when the BJP MLA complains,
it represents societal dissatisfaction, but when 1800 people sign a petition,
the answer from a key official of a Government that claims to have
‘participation’ as its main policy is that such acts are political
and people’s views can not be accommodated since they amount to a
referendum. What exactly is the
Gopalakrishnan/GoMP note trying to base its ‘local dissatisfaction’
thesis on, except for the BJP MLA’s complaint, who in a statement has
publicly thanked the Chief Minister, after the closure order was issued, for
‘granting success to the BJP movement to close down HSTP’.
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.
Response: The only argument in favour, according to the
Gopalakrishnan/GoMP note, that of ‘enjoyment by children’ has been
trivialized, since it is an intangible! What, pray then is Gender Empowerment?
Has it become meaningful only since the GDI was constructed? Is an aspect
important only if it has an associated quantifiable index (it is not impossible
to create an ‘enjoyment’ index, for example). This single remark is
sufficient evidence of the lack of understanding of the GoMP note regarding
issues surrounding education.
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[4]
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 outstanding. The issue of illegitimacy of space that
Eklavya has occupied in government schools though historical[5]
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 in the non-formal sector, just like Eklavya for formal
schools, for which 20 Apna Schools
were established around Jamdi. Gradually, the RGPSM, through budgetary cuts and
similar actions tried to force Shram Niketan to merely run the schools and give
up on creating teaching-learning materials. This caused a crisis, and Namreji
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. If this misplaced
landlord-tenant theory is to be entertained even for a minute, it is the Government that is given space to be the tenant for a five-year
period by the society in a democracy! 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 Pervez
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.
As citizens of this country who have a legitimate space to take the
government they elect to task, many questions need to be posed to the GOMP.
Most children, parents and teachers hate the textbooks and teaching methods
they have been saddled with for decades - these represent not the popular and
democratic will, as GOMP would proclaim, but the stagnation and lack of
creativity in government agencies. Recognising its own limitations, the
governments sought the cooperation of NGOs to experiment and suggest
alternative texts, programmes etc. to improve the quality of education.
Integration of such learnings into the mainstream has been a process full of
vagaries - with some encouraging results as with the primary school materials,
and long years of continuing status-quo as in the middle school programmes. The
‘‘illegitimacy’’ that is being rubbed into
Eklavya’s face by GOMP emanates much from the failure of government
processes to absorb new ideas and inputs, which basically requires political
will. As such the ‘‘illegitimacy’’ emanates from the
bad fortune that the political calculations and strategies of Digvijay Singh
government has not as yet hit upon the good use they could make of
‘science by doing’ programmes. Eklavya’s programmes
legitimately exist to influence and contribute to the process of integration of
good quality educational inputs into the mainstream. They painfully and diligently
struggled to stay grounded in the mainstream so as to legitimately proclaim
that activity based learning can be done not just in a few privately well
managed inspired schools, but in the general run of the mainstream – with
its range of good-bad-indifferent performance. They existed to establish this
legitimacy. Thousands of people and organisations in the country have seen the
import and taken heart from it. Yes, many other organisations can propose to
work in the formal system and the government will have to exercise discretion -
that their ideas and outputs are not in variance with constitutional mandates
and educational policies. Just because exercising such discretion is a very
difficult challenge, does not mean that the popular and democratic will of the
people to have enjoyable and meaningful education becomes illegitimate and the
outputs of balance of power games and stagnating governance jostling with
vested interests that is represented in any government in office becomes
legitimate and is cynically pronounced to represent the popular and democratic
will. It is such power games that on one hand ensure the dismantling of HSTP,
that has the promotion of a secular and democratic ethos and the scientific
spirit (as enshrined in the constitution) as its main objectives, but on the
other give a free run to RSS and VHP schools in Madhya Pradesh, that are
turning out batches and batches of children steeped in hatred, violence and
obscurantism. Instead of targeting such schools, the GoMP has taken the
decision to use a the ‘market management’ jargon that even communal
groups can use space through private schools, but the government schools, no
matter how low quality they are, must remain within the zamindari of the sarkar. Can this ever be the identity of a progressive government?
Some practical problems that have
arisen in the areas where HSTP operates underscores the undue haste that the
GoMP has shown in its action. The administrative shoddiness is creating a great
deal of distress in the field:
a)
The
Government claims that it has upheld the DPC decision of Hoshangabad district,
in line with the supposed primacy of decentralized governance. HSTP is however
spread over schools in 14 other districts of MP, and their DPC’s have
not asked for its closure. No one knows whether the closure order therefore
applies to these districts or not. The children, parents and teachers do not
know as of now what to teach or learn, now that the academic session is
underway. The order of closure from Amita Sharma was addressed to the
Hoshangabad Collector and marked to all other districts. If the order applies
to all the districts, that makes a mockery of the decentralization and
dissatisfaction argument. And if it applies only to Hoshangabad, it means the
program is fit for districts other than Hoshangabad. What a mess!
b)
The
order specifically says that the program be closed for all classes, 6,7 and
8. Children
in class 8, who have studied HSTP in 6 and 7 shall have to switchover to the
state book immediately, and worse, take the Board exam in the non-HSTP manner
now. Children in class 7 shall also have to switchover midway. They, their
teachers and parents are livid. Who will represent their dissatisfaction? Are
these the actions of a ‘child friendly’ Government?
c)
The
supposed magnanimity of allowing HSTP as supplementary curriculum is a nice
cover up. When students won’t be examined in this curriculum, is any
teacher ever going to take it up as supplementary? Also, the curriculum
requires kit materials and trainings – will the government allow these
for a supplementary component? If the Government is serious about it, let it
declare that schools desirous of using HSTP curriculum will get the supporting
facilities, and the examinations in such schools will not be based on
rote-learning, but through the HSTP methodology.
(The
original note of Gopalakrishnan/GoMP was never shared with Eklavya by a
Government that otherwise professes transparency – it came to us from
channels to whom Gopalakrishnan was sending it in response to their protests. A
quick response was circulated on July 16, 2002. Many comments, queries and
clarifications have come in for the draft note. They have shaped this revised
note. Significant inputs have come in from Rashmi Paliwal)
July 22, 2002