Eklavya responds to GoMP's offer for state level interventions

"eklavyamp" 10/16/02 04:15 PM

Update-27 dated October 16, 2002
Eklavya responds to GoMP's offer for state level interventions
Also suggests a blue-print for improvement in science education at the
state level thro' a Concept Note
The letter follows and the concept note is attached

October 3, 2002
To
Ms Amita Sharma
Secretary, Elementary Education, and
Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra
Pustak Bhavan, Arera Hills, Bhopal ? 462 011

Sub: State government's request to Eklavya to collaborate at the state
level
Ref: State govt's letters no. 412 dt. 02.08.02, no. 458 dt. 05.09.02 and
no. 467 dt. 19.09.02

Dear Ms Amita Sharma,

This is in response to your letter of September 5, 2002 inviting Eklavya
to submit a proposal for collaboration with the state government to take
the learnings of the Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme (HSTP) to the
state level. In this context, you had drawn our attention to your earlier
letters dated August 2, 2002 and July 18, 2002, the latter seeking
Eklavya's collaboration for technical resource support for improving state
level academic inputs in government schools. We wish to point out that
our e-mail dated August 2, 2002 outlined in detail both our willingness to
collaborate with the government as well as the areas in which we feel we
could make a useful contribution on the basis of our field level
experience in conducting educational programmes at the primary school
level as well as science and social science at the middle school level.
Our position on the potential for collaboration was restated in our letter
to the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh dated August 7, 2002. We had
marked a copy of the letter to your office for information but since you
make no reference to it in your September 5 letter, we assume it may not
have reached you. Hence we are enclosing a copy herewith.

In this letter we had again welcomed the positive response to our appeal
for building up a long-term relationship between Eklavya and the State
Education Department with the common goal of improving the quality of
education in the entire state of Madhya Pradesh. In pursuit of this
objective, we had urged the government to take some crucial steps that
would lay the groundwork for a fruitful collaboration. We are awaiting a
response to that letter so that we can continue the dialogue and
understand the state government's future initiatives to incorporate the
learnings of HSTP at the state level.

The need for such clarification remains after receiving your September 5
letter. In this letter you have again communicated the state government's
decision to have a common set of textbooks and evaluation system across
the state in government schools. While reiterating that there is potential
for Eklavya to contribute in improving state level academic inputs, you
said that such a collaboration would have to be within these parameters.
You also said that focusing on an area (district) for educational
improvement and innovation would be against the principle of equity.
While we appreciate the desire for establishing common norms and equitable
access to quality education we do not see any reason for taking this to
mean uniformity in textbooks. Particularly since the real situation is
that there is no such uniformity in practice. The rapidly expanding
private schools, while subscribing to different education boards, are
freely using a variety of textbooks. There are also a great
variety of certifying boards, such as the MP Board, the CBSE, ICSE,
National Open School, MP Open School etc.

Eklavya has always sought to uphold the principle of plurality of
textbooks and teaching learning materials and building the capacity of
school teachers to make informed choices, keeping in mind the requirements
of the children. This is essential to get over the colonial hangover of a
single prescribed textbook. What is required is to work towards a
commonality in objectives, combined with a plurality in approach.
At the same time, Eklavya does not promote the idea of a free-for-all ?
the state agencies have a role in determining the quality and content of
textbooks and other materials to be used in schools. However such a
regulatory function should not be reduced to a departmental monopoly over
production of textbooks.

Even conceding that there needs to be a uniform textbook for the entire
state, we need to keep open the possibility of developing properly field
tested teaching-learning materials and methods for field testing. One
possibility is to have a policy of permitting freedom, for limited
periods, to take up certain areas as lab areas for further learning and
field testing of educational materials. The SCERT itself should use this
space for improvement and trial and should permit groups like Eklavya
similar space, since it is only by working intensively in a defined field
area that resources and experience can be generated for a state level
process on a continuing basis. The modalities for selection and the
procedure for consulting the involved communities needs to be worked out.
This is the only way to ensure a regular R&D effort that would feed into
mainstream programmes. Further, when we talk of a state of the size and
diversity of MP, implementation of any innovation has to be carried out in
a phased manner for the simple reason that it may not be possible to
generate the necessary human resources at one go. This will mean that we
need to have parallel streams at least during the transition phase.
However, the principle issue at stake is not a collaboration between the
state government and Eklavya. Rather it is the question of how to improve
the quality of science and social science education in the state. This
question has surfaced several times in the past in the context of HSTP. In
1991, an expert committee set up by the NCERT recommended the expansion of
the programme over the entire state. In 1994, the state government sought
to incorporate the learnings of HSTP into its science education framework.
Again, in 1997, a committee to improve science education in the state was
set up but it did not function beyond holding a preliminary meeting. Thus
there were no positive outcomes from these earlier efforts.

We feel these earlier efforts failed to materialise because such
initiatives require the firm support and backing of the state government.
We continue to believe that HSTP and the Social Science Programme offer a
model for effective quality improvement in education in Madhya Pradesh and
other states. We have also generated the resources to effect such a
change. In closing down these programmes with such undue haste at this
juncture, the state government has again sent certain unfortunate signals
regarding its policy preferences.

Hence our request that the government clarify its policy on science and
social science education - whether it would like to stand by the policy
recommendations of the various commissions in this regard (Kothari
Commission, National Education Policy 1986, Yashpal Committee etc) or
would prefer to chart a new course. This would help us to determine the
manner and extent of a collaboration with the MP government in improving
science and social science education in the state.

We are also of the opinion that science and social science education of
the children of the state is too important and complex an issue to be left
to the resources presently available with the SCERT or Eklavya. It is for
this reason that we had suggested that a high level committee consisting
of senior educationists, scientists and social scientists of national
standing be constituted to give policy directions, evaluate innovative
efforts, suggest an action plan, monitor progress and suggest the policy
frame under which civil society groups such as Eklavya can collaborate.
We feel that since the state government has set up the SABE, that board
could facilitate the process.

A similar committee, Technical Resource Support Group, had been set up in
1995 to evolve strategies & oversee the planning and implementation of the
curricular initiatives under DPEP. It met every quarter and reviewed the
academic initiatives undertaken in the state as well as the progress of
the State level curricular renewal work. Both SCERT and Eklavya had a lot
to learn from this whole process. The quality of discourse was indeed
enriching and had enthused a large number of people in the education
sector. This body had national level experts to facilitate collaboration
and resolving operational problems between the collaborating agencies.
In conclusion, in order to move the dialogue ahead we have made some
suggestions regarding the contours of a possible collaboration with the
government in the accompanying note, which also discusses some of the
issues outlined above. We would request the government to respond to the
suggestions in the note. We would also request the government to outline
specific action points so that we can jointly pursue the objective of
improving school education in Madhya Pradesh. We would be ready to discuss
with the State Government the points emerging from this letter and the
appended note any time in the first week of October.

In anticipation of an early response, we remain

Yours sincerely
(Kamal Mahendroo and Anjali Noronha)
For Eklavya

Encl:
1. Concept note on collaboration between Eklavya and Madhya Pradesh
Government.
2. Copy of Eklavya's letter to the Chief Minister dt. August 7, 2002.
Copy to:
1. Principal Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
2. Shri R. Gopalakrishnan, Secretary to CM and Mission Coordinator,
Rajiv Gandhi Missions