SEEKING QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALLExperiences from the District Primary Education Programme

Occasional Papers

by

Rohit DhankarBrigid Smith

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

CONTENTS

Preface

Seeking Quality Education: In the arena of Fun and Rhetoric-Rohit Dhankar

Reflection on the progress of DPEP with particular reference to Uttar Pradesh-Brigid Smith

Glossary of Abbreviations and Indian terms

PREFACE

The improvement of the quality of primary education is one of the important goals of the DistrictPrimary Education Programme (DPEP). At the heart of the programme’s change model is a vision ofa more attractive, safer, better-attended school in each village in India – a school where each childlearns. DPEP sought to achieve these aims by an ambitious combination of decentralised, participatoryplanning and decision-making, teacher training and support, qualitative improvement in school andclassroom provision, infrastructural rationalisation, research, rigorous monitoring and supervision andinstitutional development. It sought to have an impact on primary education not only in the DPEPdistricts but in the non-DPEP districts too.

Over the years the programme has expanded, in a phased manner, to 275 districts in 18 states, thelatest expansion having taken place very recently. In the initial 42 districts DPEP has been implementedfor almost seven years and is nearing completion. Simultaneously the Central and State governmentsare revisiting their plans for achieving the UEE and EFA goals and preparing sector developmentstrategies in view of the Tenth Five Year Plan. Taking stock of not only what has changed due to DPEPbut also how changes take place, have a multiplying effect or get diluted, will at this stage be essentialat all levels particularly as quality improvement and more effective use of available resources are thethrust of the future plans and programmes.

Rohit Dhankar, who is working with a Jaipur based NGO called Digantar, participated in the 13th jointreview mission for DPEP in April 2001. Brigid Smith an independent consultant based in Cornwall,England participated in the 14th joint review mission in November 2001. The two articles brought outhere were prepared in this context and views expressed are entirely those of the authors. Rohit’s articlewill explore the notion of quality in DPEP and efforts made to improve it, whereas Brigid’s articlereflects on the efforts made to reach and retain the DPEP focus groups.

The purpose of publishing and disseminating these articles in the series of Occasional Papers is topromote and participate in the discussion on lessons learnt from DPEP – one of the most ambitiousprogrammes of educational reform in the world. We look forward to continued collaboration in thesector and your views and reflections on changes that are underway and the potential they offer.

Mervi KarikorpiJune 2002

SEEKING QUALITY EDUCATION:IN THE ARENA OF FUN AND RHETORIC

Rohit Dhankar

The notion of quality

The improvement of the quality of primaryeducation is often mentioned as one of theimportant goals of the District PrimaryEducation Programme (DPEP). DPEP hasworked in 18 states with this agenda to improvethe quality of classroom interaction andteaching-learning materials among other things.In this paper I am attempting to understand howquality is seen within DPEP and what is thenature of efforts made to improve it. This is nota study of quality in DPEP pedagogy reformdrive; the paper is more in the nature ofreflections on the educational thought guidingthe efforts as well as the training methods used.The paper also proposes an alternative way oflooking at quality and suggests a few measuresthat may help in crystallising the notion of quality,as well as contribute to the efforts made torealise that notion.

There are a whole lot of things, starting fromthe school building to programme monitoring,which could be seen as affecting the quality ofa school. The purpose of this article, though, isa limited one. In order to understand oneimportant aspect of the quality improvementdrive within DPEP we shall concentrate entirelyon classroom processes, textbooks andmaterials used, and teacher training; in otherwords the content and process of education.This does not mean that community involvement,monitoring, evaluation, and school buildings donot contribute to the quality of a school, butcertainly, these factors are secondary to the

quality of education. They are some of themeans to make classroom processes ‘better’.

The DPEP Guidelines quotes from the NPEresolve “that free and compulsory education ofsatisfactory quality should be provided to allchildren up to 14 years of age…”.1 Guidelinesis a document which sets out various programmeparameters and objectives in a very generalsense, and therefore, it would be unfair to expectit to dwell on defining the quality of primaryeducation in great detail. Still a careful readingof the document reveals many valuable hints atthe notion of quality assumed. One can perhapsput these hints in two broad groups: one, theobjectives and targets of the programme thathave a bearing on the educational practices, andtwo, those more specifically characterising theclassroom practices.

Among the first group one finds: “improvingschool effectiveness; toning up teachercompetence, training and motivation; stressinglearning competence and achievements;stressing need for improved teaching/learningmaterials”;2 “enhancing school effectiveness interms of …. learning achievements”;3 and similarobjectives, all very important areas whereimprovement is needed. The next groupprovides hints to the direction in which one isadvised to look for answers to the question“well, what does one do to improve school

1 DPEP Guidelines, 1995, 1997, p.1.2 DPEP Guidelnes, 1995, 1997, p.3.3 DPEP Guidelines, 1995, 1997, p.12.

1

effectiveness, enhance learning achievements,etc.?” There are many hints at preferablepractices that are supposed to help and/ordefine the above-mentioned improvements.

Foremost among such elements of quality is asystem based on Minimum Levels of Learning(MLLs). MLLs is seen as important enough tobe mentioned in defining the DPEP mandate(p.1), in convergence of various aspects ofeducation (p.10), as part of pedagogic training(p.19) and target setting for activities underprimary formal education (p.23). The secondimportant element prescribed for the system ismultigrade teaching: again, mentioned inconnection with convergence and as a highlyrecommended part of the teacher training. Thesystem is also supposed to pay attention tolessening the academic burden (p.10), to begender sensitive (p.10, 19) and to beenvironment sensitive (p.19). Thus we canconclude that when DPEP Guidelines talks ofquality improvement it is referring to a systemwhich is (i) based on MLLs, (ii) encouragesmultigrade teaching (perhaps in order to solvethe problem of having fewer teachers thannumber of grades in a school), (iii) is lessburdensome academically, and (iv) is genderand environment sensitive.

This notion of quality in education was furthercrystallised by the time another documentDPEP moves on…(1998) was published.DPEP moves on… states “Improvement in thequality of primary education is the core ofDPEP. The key areas in which interventionshave been planned and are being implementedare fostering a clear pedagogic vision of anactive, child centered classroom; developmentof in-service teacher training which isparticipatory and experiential in nature andwhich addresses classroom issues; developmentof activity-oriented teaching learning materialincluding textbooks that would help in

achieving MLLs”.4 The focus on BlockResource Centres (BRCs) and ClusterResource Centres (CRCs) is supposed to have“shifted from lecture-demonstrations to aninteractive, empowering approach”.5 Further“the training programmes lay emphasis onMLLs, activity-based child-centered methods,content areas and creation and use of teaching-learning materials. Other aspects that areincreasingly being made part of teacher trainingare gender sensitisation …”.6

One notices a few new elements entering thenotion of quality: activity-based teachingmethods; and interactive, empowering,participatory and experiential training. There isalso a mention of special issues in education oftribal children etc. but that is not at the level ofthe ‘quality’ of the system as gender sensitivityis. “Environment sensitive” does not findmention in DPEP moves on…but perhaps oneshould not make too much of it at this stage.

The stories of textbook renewal in Kerala, TamilNadu, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Assam (inthe second round) are supposed to be informedby the same activity-based child-centeredpedagogy to better achieve MLL. Kerala, itseems, was attempting to improve qualitythrough MLLs based approach alone in 1995,when through the route of activity-orientedclassrooms, the state discovered the full-blownchild-centered pedagogy, and ended up byevolving revolutionary new textbooks; and astrategy to be followed in other states as abonus.7 R.S. Pandey in Going to Scale with

4 DPEP moves on …, 1998, p. 24.5 Ibid. p.25.6 Ibid. p.25.7 Raghaw Panday, Going to Scale with Education

Reform, 2000; Subir Shukla, Where Angels Fear toTread, 2001; Subir Shukla, Systems in Transition:A Case Study of DPEP India, 1999.

2

Education Reform celebrates and restates thesame notion of quality.

In view of all this one can reasonably statethat the official documents, training materialand manuals, workshop/training dialogueand reports (as we will see in a short while),and informed writing on DPEP, all largelyput forward the same notion ofqualitative improvement in education.To recapitulate that agreed upon notion,a good quality education system isone that:(i) employs child-centered, activity-based

and joyful learning methods;(ii) using, again, child-centered and activity

oriented textbooks;(iii) in multigrade/multilevel classrooms;(iv) in order to help children attain

prescribed standards as per MinimumLevels of Learning (MLLs).

The child-centeredness, in points (i) and(ii) above, is the main operative element.Activity-based and joyful learning aremore of defining characteristics ofchild-centered pedagogy rather thanindependent elements of quality of thesystem. Using child-centered materials(whatever they might mean!) can be properlyconsidered as part of the child-centeredmethods, rather than an independentelement. Therefore, we have three mainstrands of this notion of quality: namely,child-centered methods (together withactivity-based and joyful learning, of course),multilevel/multigrade teaching and MLLs.Since these three strands define thisnotion of quality education we can call it“Child-centered MLL-oriented” (CMO)notion of quality education. To understandthis notion of quality education properly,let us look at the three defining strandsmore closely as they are interpreted in

DPEP.8

However, before embarking upon this task, weneed to state that this is not the only notion ofquality education in DPEP, though it certainly isthe most dominant one. It also has internalvariations, some closer to the child-centered andothers closer to MLLs. Also there are severalinterpretations of child-centered education,exhibiting varying degrees of sophistication.Secondly, some DPEP states may haveentertained different models, which did not havemuch to do either with child-centeredness orwith MLLs. But most of these attempts slowlyaccepted the same rhetoric and became moreor less indistinguishable from the CMO model,with the possible exception of Kerala.Therefore, in this article we shall mostly talkonly of the CMO model.

The nature of child-centrism prescribedin the CMO model

The first and most important defining strand ofthe CMO model of quality education is its child-centeredness. One wonders at the sheerfrequency with which the hyphenated words“child-centered” are used, not only in DPEP,but in general conversation on education in India.Almost any question about quality of educationcan be answered with this magic compoundword. Books are very good, ‘because they arechild-centered’ (or may be child-oriented). Theteacher-training programme is very good,‘because it emphasises child-centeredteaching’. The programme is innovative,

8 Robin Alexander in his paper “In pursuit of qualityin elementary education: Reflections on DPEP”leaves MLLs out of the defining strands of qualityeducation as understood in DPEP. He presents anexcellent critique of the model. (Reflections onequity, quality and local planning in the DistrictPrimary Education Programme, 2001, The EuropeanCommission.)

3

‘because it is child-centered’. In spite of thisfrequent use, though, not much effort is madeto clarify what “child-centeredness” is supposedto mean in all these contexts. Since there is noelaboration on, or a clear definition available(at least I have not seen one), of this magicformula as understood in DPEP, we shall haveto cull-out on our own, from stray statementsavailable in the literature, remembered discoursewith DPEP personnel and general tenor ofDPEP workshops. In order to capture thenotion we will note: a) relevant general trends,b) notion of the child used, c) assumptions aboutthe child’s process of learning propagated, andd) the role of the teacher, that the CMO notionof quality prescribes.

The workshops on pedagogy, textbooks, andvisioning, etc. all seem to start with a discussionon the child. The various kinds of trainingmanuals reinforce the same trend. The questionposed could be as profound as “what is thechild?”, “what is the view of the child taken?”or “how do you look at the child?”. Thisexercise of reflecting on the question seems tobe meant to replace the existing notion of thechild in the minds of the participants with a‘brand new’ concept of her. “What is a child?Answers to this question determine how we aregoing to act in the professional capacity as ateacher”.9 I am drawing attention to thisinnocuous looking ritual of starting with thequestion about the child for two reasons. One,we need to note the belief that spontaneouslyproduced ideas about the child, her learningprocesses, her interests and attitudes constitutean adequate background to make allpedagogical decisions. This convenientlyempowering belief reverberates throughout theDPEP discourse on pedagogy. And second, thediscussion about the child is a substitute for the

discussion on the meaning and the importanceof education, concepts of teaching and learning,aims of education, and so on. Therefore, theact of starting with this question is more thanjust initiating an enquiry into the teachers’ beliefsabout children. This, one notices in the literature,is an act of choice made in favour of a particularpedagogy, a direction set without examining thenature of the process of education. The case Iam making is not that there should be nodiscussion about the child. No, how can onetalk of a meaningful education without talkingof the child? What I am emphasising is, that theconcept of education and notion of schooling(to mention just the two) are as important ineducational discourse as the notion of the child.The assumption that a few ambiguousstatements about the child alone – to theexclusion of all other considerations – areenough to construct a notion of quality ineducation is rather naive, to say the least. Wewill have occasions in this paper to revert tothis theme; right now the purpose is to note thistrait of exclusive attention to a few chosenconcepts in the CMO child-centeredness.

Now, let us have a look at the view of the childwhich is supposed to change the wholeprofessional life of the teachers. The most oftenencountered metaphor for the child is that of aplant, “…the children are like plants that needto be nurtured with care for proper growth anddevelopment. It is our responsibility to providethem the appropriate environment. They mustnot be treated like empty vessels that need tobe filled with knowledge”.10 The metaphor ofthe child as a plant is contrasted with the childas an empty vessel, and so far the point is wellmade that children should not be educated as ifbeing filled with information and facts. But themetaphor is used for much more than just that,it leads to a view of the child’s nature, learning,

9 Sabal, Vichar Patrak, p-a6 (A tentative Englishrendering from Hindi by the writer of this article). 10 Glimmer of Hope…, p.23.

4

and what we should do in the school, all tooquick for comfort. Neither the literature, northe state and district level pedagogy personnelseem to be aware of the limitations this metaphorof “the child as a plant” has. The idea seems tohave been taken in the true child-centristtradition, where “the idea of the child’s ‘essentialnature’ is that of some kind of pattern forperfection, which is held to be present in anembryo form in the child and which will revealitself in a developmental unfolding if only theenvironment and external stimulation is right”.11

Problems of this metaphor emerge when it isused to characterise learning processes, andmaking decisions regarding what the teacherought, or ought not to do. The plant metaphorvery obviously has more than a hint ofpredetermined direction of growth and a blueprint of an end state for every child. This seemsto have been accepted. “We can not acceptthat the child is an empty vessel nor can wemake of him exactly what we desire tomake. If we could make them what we wanted,then our school would have been a factory ofgods and prophets. ... nor do we want to castall children into the same mould because weknow that each child differs in his capabilitiesto learn, it is difficult to put a limit on the child’scapabilities to learn. … We should strive toprovide equal opportunity and environment thatis conducive for learning, so that children candevelop in their natural way, like a plantnaturally grows (develops?) if adequate air,water, compost and light are made available.We also have to create (and collect!) situationsand experiences so that the child can becomecapable of effecting his own development.”12

The blue print of development, complete withdirection and scope – upper limits – seems tobe predetermined. We can create the

environment and wait. If we are not able tomake every child a ‘god or prophet’ (readeducated?) it is not our fault, he was not destinedto be.

Another important characteristic of the child isthat he is naturally curious and wants to learn.13

They are by nature “…imaginative, driven bythe urge to learn new things, like to learn bydoing.”14 And “they like to do only whatinterests them”; as if it could ever be otherwisefor any one! This view of the child providesone with many hints on formulating ideas on howchildren learn. As is already mentioned, childrenare by nature curious, they have a craving forlearning and are born with innate potential tolearn. They learn on their own in the classroomand outside it. “…The child is not an emptycreature, she is born with multifaceted innatecapabilities, and due to gradual interaction withher environment these innate capabilities aredramatically enriched and manifested incomplex forms.”15 “Every child is born withenormous creativity and the adults should makeevery effort to provide opportunities in whichthe child can use this creativity. … No one learnswithout committing mistakes, be it a child or anadult. Making mistakes is an essential part ofthe process of learning, and therefore the adultsneed to change their attitude towardsmistakes.”16

“Children imitate and use that ability in languagelearning.”17 “Children learn with different

11 R. F. Dearden, The philosophy of primaryEducation, ELBS & RKP, 1970 p.32.

12 Sabal, Vichar-Patrak, p.6.

13 Sabal, Vichar-Patrak, p.6. and, of course,numerous other texts. Texts I am quoting here justhappened to be with me at the moment of writing,almost all DPEP manuals would propound thesame view.

14 Glimmer of Hope…, p.2; Every child in schooland every child learning, p.30.

15Chunauti, April 1999,p. 19.16 Ibid., p.19.17 Sabal, p.6.

5

speeds, they also differ in their capabilities,interests and therefore it is difficult to allot afixed time (to learn something).”18 “We shouldknow that children have their own world, andwe have to come down and enter theirworld.”19 and also that “usually the process oflearning by adults and children is similar.”20

This characterisation of the child, and herlearning process has adequately prepared usto face the rhetorical question “now we caneasily think whether it is the school which shouldadjust to the children or whether the childrenshould be made to adjust to the school?Answering the question is not as important aschoosing the right alternative from these two.”21

This is a very important question, particularly inthe DPEP context, when the pedagogical reformis in full swing. One notices that thecharacterisation of the child and the learningprocess is rather scanty, the literature of somestates repeats the same five or six statementsagain and again; in workshops and trainingprogrammes the same statements are repeatedwithout taking the discourse any deeper orbroadening the scope. This limitedcharacterisation of the child and learning doesnot really illuminate ones path as a teacher, andis grossly inadequate to make any informedchoices. Thus there are two alternatives: eitherthe child has to adjust to the school or the schoolto the child. It is assumed that there is someelement of incompatibility and that theadjustment cannot be mutual. And finally it isassumed, that one can make the right choicewithout answering the question so rhetoricallyposed. One may wonder: If the choice is notguided by the answer to the question, then whatis it that will show the right path?

The teacher is expected to stop emphasising“teaching” and bring to the centre “learning”.The dichotomy created between “teaching” and“learning” presumes certain interpretations ofthese concepts, and may not bear scrutiny. It isbelieved that the teacher should become afacilitator, stop emphasising teaching, and startfacilitating. Being a friend to the children, a helperto them is considered part of being a facilitator,and being knowledgeable is considered acapacity needed for the task of facilitating. Theteacher is expected to create a classroomenvironment, in which children learn on theirown, according to their individual capabilities,and are unfolding their individual blue prints ofdevelopment to the best of their capabilities.

On the face of it, this notion of child-centerededucation seems to have many assumptionsregarding children’s learning etc. which may bejustifiable and can be corroborated by research.It does emphasise sensitivity to the child’sfeelings, to her ways of looking at the world,and to her ways of learning. It does advocategiving the child more freedom in the school andto make the school enjoyable. It alsoemphasises learning with activities, and wantsto do away with rote learning. All these thingsare an improvement on the existing system ofeducation and much needed reforms, which mayhelp in improving the quality of primaryeducation if actually brought to the schools. Andyet, I would argue that the model is inadequateand perhaps is not capable of much change.

The reasons for criticising the notion of child-centeredness propagated in DPEP are asfollows: One, almost all the statements aboutthe child are presented as pure assertions. Theyare not supported by any evidence nordiscussed in a manner to bring out their trueimport. That is so both in the literature as wellas training and capacity building workshops. Ihave said in the paragraph above that some of

18 Sabal, p.9.19 Sabal, p.9.20 Ibid.21 Sadhan, p.6.

6

these statements may be supported by researchon children’s learning, but that evidence is notshared with the teachers in a meaningful manner.As a result, these separate assertions do notform a basis in the teacher’s mind to help her indeveloping her own activities or programmes,nor do they accomplish this task for the trainer.They remain nuggets of received knowledge,cherished possessions in ones verbal repertoire.Two, the assorted statements are also toosuperficial. If one wanted to constitute aprogramme on the basis of this knowledge itwould be impossible. Much more informationand knowledge would be needed.

Three, many of the assertions are plainlymisleading. For example, “the child is like a plantto be nurtured”. Analogy and metaphors lend anarrative power to fire the imagination of thelisteners. But they also have the potential tomislead or confuse the discourse. Metaphorshave to be used within strictly definedparameters. Here the child as a plant is usedquite freely. It is emphasised that the child candevelop on her own, providing the teachercreates the right environment. This discounts thesocial influence on the shaping of the child. Itgives an impression that the child has within her,the fully-grown human being exactly as “an oak-tree is present in embryo in an acorn.”22 Thismay point to the potential of the child to develop,but it also seals the child’s destiny. The shapeand maximum size, besides much else, of “theoak tree” is of course already predestined. Noamount of good nurturing can change that. Onedoes not really need very sharp reasoning tounderstand the implications of such a theory inthe context of education in a caste-ridden

society. We have been hearing for generationsthat the caste characteristics (intelligence andsatvik nature of the Brahmin, or stupidity andtamsi nature of the shudra) are innate, born withthe baby. And, of course, “honhar birwan kehot chikne paat” – the seedling that is capableof growing has shiny leaves, meaning that thegifted ones can be recognised early in life. Theinterpretation of the “child as a plant” metaphorwith hints at its predestined nature, may turnout to be quite damaging for many of thechildren.23 The metaphor, of course, is patentlymisleading and mental development is very mucha social phenomenon, and not sealed in any“acorn” with its detailed blue print.

Four, there is not much in the characterisationof the child and her learning process to warrantthe conclusion that the teacher should becomea facilitator. Even if one accepts the dubiousclaim that given the right environment the childwill develop on her own, the teacher cannotabdicate her responsibility for the direction thatdevelopment takes. The child’s innatecapabilities make her as good a learner in caringfor others, as in hating or torturing others. Thechild-centrist today cannot claim like Rousseauthat “Let us lay it down as an incontestablemaxim that the first movements of nature arealways right.”24 Nor are they in a position toclaim divinity in the child, like Froebel.Therefore, the teacher has to do a substantialamount of directing and pruning as well as

22 “The perfect manhood which is present in embryoin the new-born infant, just as the oak-tree ispresent in embryo in the acorn, will struggleunceasingly to evolve itself.” E. Holms in What Isand What Might Be, 1911, London: Constable.

23 A trainer in a training session explained that inplay girls make houses while the boys break thembecause the girls are destined to build homes whenthey grow-up. The school especially started forgirl children are called “Aangan Shalas”,reflecting the deep-seated wish to keep womenwithin the “aangan”(court-yard surrounded byfour walls of the house). No wonder the metaphorof “child as a plant” has proven to be ratherpopular.

24 Rousseau, Emile, Book 2, page 267.

7

nurturing and facilitating; and has to makedecisions about what to nurture and what toprune.

Five, in addition to being unwarranted thedepiction of the teacher as the facilitator, isunexplained and is also minimal. It does notprovide substantial ground to run the school.Finally, I feel that the teachers slowly becomeaware of these weaknesses in the notion, andunderstand it for what it is – a rhetorical notion.Its implication for lesson plans, classroomactivities, evaluation and classroom organisationare too nebulous and equivocal.

This use of rhetoric does bigger damage in theIndian educational scenario than we realise inthe first instance. To understand this, imagineyourself as a teacher in a rural Indian school,who has seen more than a fair amount ofdiscrepancy between what is said, and what isdone by the school administration. Now thisteacher is given a new training, where aninconsistent, vague notion of child-centerednessis created. It recommends a fairly large amountof freedom to the child, self-directed and self-learning through activity, facilitation rather thanteaching, freedom of pace of learning to thechild, integrated learning, and so on. As ateacher, you find it probably very different fromwhat you have been doing. Still you accept it,and wonder how the school will actually run.Then after this ‘theory’ the actual business ofthe classroom teaching is discussed, and lo andbehold, the same old grades with their year-wise packaging of curriculum re-appear (somestates that want to make progress faster,package the curriculum even month-wise);book-based lesson plans, where the whole-class teaching is the norm, and pass-fail on thebasis of book-based examination remainunaffected by the child-centered principles; theneed for every child to do what the teacher hasplanned re-appear, and so on. These two sets

of recommendations are clearly at odds witheach other, but it is given to understand that theunderstanding of the child, and child’s learningprocesses recommends both. This will bring theIndian teacher full circle “hathi ke dantdikhane ke aur khane ke aur” – the elephanthas two sets of teeth, one for show and anotherone to eat with. And it becomes another steptowards cynicism. A very often heard remarkin free time between the sessions of teachertraining is “yeh sab kahne kibaten hain, kamto vaise hi chalega” – all these nice soundingwords are there to be said, however, “the workwill go on as usual”. This attitude can beconfronted only with a consistent programme,that has very clear linkages between theassumptions and classroom practices. Also, thisinternally inconsistent child-centrism reinforcesthe mistaken dichotomy between theory andpractice, so popular among the Indianeducationalists. And last but not the least, likeall child-centrist theories, this particular brand,however shoddily constructed, alsocommunicates without ambiguity that exploringconcepts and the aims of education andepistemology are useless exercises, whereascontemplating, however incompetently, thenature of the child is enough to build practicablemodels of education. Child-centrists are, ofcourse, famous for being strong on methods andweak on aims.

Multigrade/multilevel teaching as astrategy to deal with the shortage ofteachers

The second strand in the CMO model of qualityin education is that of multigrade/multilevelteaching. The discourse on multigrade/multilevelis quite confusing. This is evident from thecontinuous use of two words; “multigrade/multilevel”. Most of the DPEP efforts havebeen in multigrade teaching, that is, one teacherteaching more than one grade. The need and

8

rationale for multigrade teaching is either socio-political or managerial; and pedagogicalconsiderations are only grafted on to it. Thereare still a big number of schools with twoteachers, or even only one teacher, for fivegrades. In most of these schools the studentteacher ratio is 60:1 or above. There is a realproblem, how can one teacher teach more thanone grade (two or three or even all the five)and 60 or more children at the same time? Thereal solution to the problem is to appoint moreteachers and rectify the adverse situation. Butappointing more teachers costs money. Sincemost of the children in these schools belong tothe weaker sections of society, easier and lessexpensive solutions are sought. Therefore apedagogical solution for this socio-economicproblem is devised in the name of multigradeteaching strategies.

Most of the strategies devised for the so-calledmultigrade teaching are plainly time and spacemanagement techniques, more or less effective.They are designed to keep the children ingrades, and on the given task. The idea ofextending the notion to allow the child morespace to work independently, and alsosimultaneously provide support is extremelyrare. The multigrade, in DPEP, is not a desirablesituation; it is a necessary evil, which is to becombated, even if willy-nilly.

The grade-less classrooms (or learning groups)where children are not segregated intohomogeneous classes, but insteadheterogeneous learning groups are seen as adesirable and pedagogically relatively morepotent situation25 is quite a different idea. Thisnotion of grade-less teaching is very differentfrom the DPEP multigrade, both in itsassumptions as well as implementation. Here

the freedom of the pace of learning, and childrenhelping each other, are central to the idea. Themodel does not tolerate a ‘sab chalta hai’(anything goes) attitude, and the adverse childteacher ratio becomes very difficult – almostimpossible beyond 30 children to one teacher– to handle. Necessity of preparation, materialin the classroom and adequate space etc.prevent it from becoming popular within DPEP.Within DPEP this model is often referred to asmultilevel teaching, ‘level’ meaning ‘learninglevels of the children’.

“Multilevel” is also used in DPEP to refer to asituation of teaching so called “bright” and“dull” (in spite of all the child-centrist rhetoricthese notions are intact) children of the samegrade together, here ‘level’ meaning the ‘levelof intelligence’ of the child. To my mind it isquite a bizarre idea of “multilevel” teaching, andits simultaneous worship with the CMO brandchild-centrism is an evidence of the rhetoricalnature of the latter. Clearly, however forcefullyone may claim this kind of understanding ofmultigrade/multilevel teaching as a factor inquality improvement, a closer analysis quicklyreveals that the claim does not hold much water.The strategy is either used in AlternativeSchooling Programmes, which are any waysecond rate attempts to educate poorer childrenand are wanting in quality, or at a few places inthe learning ladder strategies. The learningladder strategies seem to be genuine attemptsat the multigrade teaching in order to givechildren relatively more independence inlearning, though they do not go as far asquestioning the idea of the grade itself.

The concept of grade involves: i) breaking downthe curriculum into chunks of learning, packagedseparately, ii) allotting a fixed time to masterthe packaged curricular content, usually oneyear, iii) testing either at the end of the allottedtime period, or maybe several times in between,

25 Grade-less learning groups are sometimes called“family grouping” or “vertical grouping”.

9

but calculating the total score to decide eligibilityor lack of it, to promote the learner to study thenext curricular chunk, iv) in case of a failure,the whole chunk should be learned in the sametime period (one year) again, no freedom eitherto re-package the curriculum in smaller chunks,nor any flexibility in the learning time allotted.Clearly though the idea of grade is basically amanagement-friendly idea, its pedagogical basisis rather doubtful. No serious analysis of theseideas and their pedagogical justification isdeemed necessary within DPEP. The child-centered pedagogy generally encouragesquestioning these untenable assumptions, butnot in DPEP. Therefore, there is no awarenessthat the freedom of the pace of learning andcontinuous evaluation is incompatible with theconcept of grade. As the grade was used tomanage children, now in a changed situation theidea of multigrade is used for the same purpose.It seems that claiming that the multilevel/multigrade is an effort for quality improvement,is nothing more than making a virtue out of anugly necessity; ugly because the children whobear the brunt belong to the weaker sections ofthe society.

MLLs as the measure of quality

The third strand in the CMO model of qualityeducation is better achievements in MinimumLevels of Learning (MLLs). It is perhaps clearwithout stating, that better achievements in acurricular scheme could be called improvementin quality only if the curricular scheme itself isconsidered of at least a satisfactory quality. Ifthe quality of the scheme itself is questioned,the degree of achievements in itself would berather inadequate to justify claims of qualityimprovement. This is precisely the problem inhanging the quality of primary education on thepeg of MLLs. There was an intense debate onthe MLLs at the time of its presentation beforethe nation, although the MLLs’ promoters did

not take any notice of the arguments against it.Some of those arguments were:

(i) This patently behaviourist approach ofmeasuring learning by change inobservable behaviour is not defendable.Learning need not manifest itself inbehaviour immediately after itsoccurrence. The learner, as a consciouschoice maker, is not consistent with thisidea; nor does a change in behaviournecessarily indicate worthwhile humanlearning, as human learning necessarilyinvolves an element of understanding,and change of behaviour by conditioningmay dispense with understanding,

(ii) The idea of chopping up a subject areain discrete competencies to bemastered one by one is neitherepistemologically sound, nor is itsupported by the theories of learning;

(iii) The presentation of MLLs creates adichotomy between cognitive andaffective domains which is hard tosustain. The idea of values withoutcognition, purely a caught behaviour,was abhorrent to many;

(iv) The rigidly defined competencies to bemastered within a given time (grade wisecompetencies) by all children is not aviable idea, nor is it desirable;

(v) The notion of competency is used asall encompassing – including values,attitudes, opinions, etc. – this willrender the educational discoursepoorer and after an intense campaignfor implementation the only thing worthlearning will remain the narrowcompetencies synonymous with skillsbordering on plain narrow mental

10

gymnastics, a sort of ‘mental-dexterities’;

(vi) The MLLs as presented have no placefor critical thinking, autonomy andcreativity, while over emphasising socalled competencies;

(vii) The aims of education as defined bythe MLLs, are to make the learnersuseful and contributing adults ratherthan autonomous rational members ofsociety, who participate in deciding thekind of society they want to make andsustain. Learners are supposed to seekfulfilment in contributing to the societywithout questioning its aberrations;

(viii) MLLs sees education as teaching ofonly 3Rs.26 The arts and skills are notgiven any place in the curriculum.

These were some of the arguments againstMLLs which are relevant to our presentdiscussion. Ten years down the line, and after ahard campaign to implement MLLs, many ofthe arguments advanced against MLLs arecorroborated by experience, but that is anotherstory. The DPEP reluctantly looked at thecurriculum in some states, and nowhererigorously questioned the MLLs, perhaps withthe possible exception of Kerala. The issueslisted above on MLLs, raised 5-9 years backare still unanswered. Some of the characteristicsof MLLs are clearly and starkly antagonistic tothe child-centeredness as accepted by DPEP.All the child-centered theories have beenresisting teaching, specifically to achievenarrowly defined competencies, and thereforehave been resisting uniform standards. The ideasof the freedom of pace of learning, integratedteaching, giving the child space to learn on her

own, teacher as a facilitator etc. all contradictMLLs approach, and still the DPEP brand ofchild-centeredness (nay, the Indian brand ofchild-centeredness) has been happily marriedto MLLs, and is ‘happily living ever after’. Talkof strange bedfellows!

We have tried to understand the CMO notionof quality in education and found that it hangson the notions of the child, her learningprocesses, idea of multigrade/multilevel teachingand MLLs as the basis for curriculum. Thediscourse on the notions of the child, the child’slearning processes, and multigrade/multilevelteaching, is very scanty, not enough to empowereither the teacher or the trainer, is misleading.Conclusions for the textbooks or the classroomteaching are not informed by the assertions maderegarding the nature of the child, or her learningprocesses, and the real basis for them is notdiscussed or articulated. The rhetoric is on oneside and the practical business of classroomteaching has its own logic, never told to theteacher or even the trainer. The positions takenon the three major issues – child-centeredness,multigrade/multilevel teaching and MLLs –contradict each other. These are the majorweaknesses of the model when we analyse itfrom inside, that is, accepting the frameworkwithin which it operates. A critique from withincan point out the problems related withconsistency, veracity of claims and adequacyof assumptions made about the separateelements that constitute the model, but cannotproperly highlight the inadequacy of the wholemodel as a framework to guide educationalendeavour. That is what we shall turn to now.

Inadequacy of the framework

We noticed that a few sketchy remarks madeabout the nature of the child, and another equallysparse set of commonplace remarks about thelearning process, lead to the point where one is26 3 Rs = reading, writing and arithmetic.

11

to decide about the kind of school that wouldbe suitable for the children. Apart from the facilenature of the comments, what is noteworthy hereis the idea communicated, that the only relevantconsiderations to decide about the schoolorganisation and role of the teacher, are thechild’s interests, what she likes and dislikes, howshe learns through play and how curious andeager she is to learn. The model does not seemto be aware that it is theoretically possible toagree, for example, that children enjoy runningaround and cannot sit still, and still hold thatprecisely that’s why in school one must insiston making them sit still and concentrate on work;as children have to be prepared for life, and aslife often demands self-discipline to curb yourown inclinations of the moment in your own longterm interest.27 To counter this argument, whichis so common among north Indian schoolteachers, one has to bring in more psychologyand claim that running about and playing in theearly years prepare a child for a betterdisciplined life when she grows up. This line hastwo problems: one, it may not have reliableempirical evidence; and two, even if it does,the value of play is not established on its ownintrinsic worth, but on the basis of a tool toproduce better discipline. Therefore, the playhas only an instrumental value. The fulcrum ofthe decision, to let the children play and runabout, is not the child’s nature here, nor is itbetter learning, but the cherished value ofdiscipline. A second line could be to maintainthat even if the children need discipline, it isethically wrong to make children sit still, as itmakes them unhappy. This line of argument can

be advanced only if ‘making children unhappy’is accepted to be ethically wrong, againthe fulcrum of decision is passed on to anethical value from an assumedpsychological fact. A third line oftenadvanced is that as ‘one can take the horseto the water but cannot make it drink’ ateacher can make the children sit still, butcannot make them learn without theirvoluntary co-operation. This argumentmakes sense only if learning is accepted asthe most important value, at least in thiscontext. Confronted with a question like“why learning should be considered moreimportant than disciplining?”, one has to againtake recourse to some ethical values and noamount of description of the child’s nature andways of learning alone would suffice. Fromthese examples one can say, at least primafacie, that assumptions regarding the child’snature and the learning process are descriptivein nature and therefore, alone are notsufficient to make educational decisionsabout the kind of school and othereducational processes one must opt for.

Deliberations on the curriculum have beenrather limited in the whole effort forquality improvement. The action hasbeen concentrated on training at variouslevels and textbook renewal. Even wherethe curriculum became a subject ofdeliberations the exercise was limited toseeing whether it is too difficult for the child.“Rather than develop the curriculum fromscratch, the route adopted was that ofreviewing the existing curriculum, and using thisreview as a basis to evolve the new curriculum.This included identifying current difficultiesfaced by children and teachers, the vision ofthe team identifying common beliefs andassumptions, sharing concern about the MLLs,and using this to draw implications as well as acommon frame of reference against which the

27 “Interests” of the children is much used word inthe child-centrist discourse. But generally noattention is paid to the fact that it may have twomeanings; one, that in which the children areinterested at a particular moment, inclined to doetc.; and two, that what is in children’s interest,that is good for them. Children are not always‘interested in’ what is ‘in their own interest’.

12

curriculum could then be reviewed.”28 Thisseems to be a typical statement describing thecurriculum renewal process. The only substantialaction it communicates is “included identifyingcurrent difficulties faced by children andteachers”. The reference to a vision of the team,common beliefs and assumptions, concerns withMLLs etc. are mentioned several times invarious documents29 , but what these beliefs andassumptions were is not very clear, unless theyare the kind of beliefs and assumptions,captured from several sources in the earliersections of this article, and which are shown tobe inadequate. It seems the question of whatshould be taught, is solely decided on theconsiderations of what is difficult and what isnot, coupled with the views about the child andher learning. If that has been the case, as it seemsvery probable from the study of availabledocuments and training material, clearly it is agrossly inadequate framework of ideas totemper with any curriculum. Nowhere does onefind any serious and substantiated mention ofthe concept of education, school, desirablesociety and aims of education. Similarly theconsiderations of the nature of knowledge, itsformation, its validity and organisation intosubject areas are as good an anathema as thefirst set of concepts. The result is that thephilosophy of education – concept of education,aims, relationship with society, human nature andepistemology, at the least – has no role to playin the CMO model of the quality of education.

Primary education is seen to be equivalent to

the teaching of Language, Mathematics andEnvironmental Studies (EVS). In spite of all thechild-centeredness and praise of holisticeducation, no systematic attempt of the child’saesthetic development and exploring manualskills (working with hands, manipulating materialin desired forms) is deemed necessary. Thisnarrowing of educational vision is, to my mind,an immediate fallout of jettisoning the philosophyof education in favour of sentimentalpsychology, of substituting human nature withthe nature of the child, of exclusivelyconcentrating on the nature of the child’slearning in preference to the nature of humanlearning and epistemology.30

Another unfortunate impact, the disregard ofphilosophical considerations has on anyframework of education, is that it becomesimpossible to justify the framework on publiclyacceptable criteria. Because the criteria,ultimately, is to do with socially acceptablevalues and psychological descriptions of what“is the case” it cannot lead to what “ought tobe the case”. As a result such models rely oneither authority – be it that of documents, orpersons – or on rhetoric and sentimental appeal.Both these modes of convincing others areantithetical to critical thinking and, therefore, toempowerment. Independent development in theprofession through these methods become verydoubtful. We shall revert back to this issue whenwe discuss the mode of communicating theCMO notion of quality.

So far we have looked closely at the notion ofquality we called the CMO notion. This notionassumes a framework of assumptions and

28 Subir Shukla, Where angels feared to tread, inReflections on Equity, quality and local planningin the District Primary Education Programme, 2001,The European Commission. (Emphasis in the textis mine).

29 Where angels feared to tread, Subir Shukla;Systems in Transition, Subir Shukla; Glimmer ofhope; Going to scale with Education Reform,Raghaw Pandey.

30In future I will use philosophy of education toindicate considerations regarding human nature,desirable society, concept of education, aims ofeducation, nature of knowledge; organisation,formation and validation of knowledge; andsimilar issues.

13

beliefs, and we have tried to point outcertain problems this notion and theassumed framework seem to have. Thisrather forthright critique is guided by thebelief – hopefully well founded – that thougha theoretically sound framework, is noguarantee of success in the field, atheoretically unsound framework is boundto hamper success. If that were true,DPEP would do well to re-examine itsbasic assumptions regarding both educationand quality in education.

The nature of attempts made tocommunicate the idea of quality and someof the fallouts

In this section we shall try to understand theattempts made to make the CMO notion ofquality operational. We are concerned herewith only those attempts that are in the form ofcapacity building, training, and preparation forpedagogical inputs at various levels, or teachertraining.

A pedagogical reform programme wouldnecessarily involve a shift in certain key ideasconcerning teaching, learning, material used andso on. Without bringing about such a shift inideas and attitudes, the change in the behaviourof the teacher in interaction with the child wouldbe a worthless change. Developing new books,and using them in classrooms with a changedpedagogy requires a lot of churning, thrashingout of ideas, opportunities for discourse anddialogue, and communication at a huge scale.DPEP did open up a dialogue on methods inprimary education throughout the nation. Itnever dared ask any serious questions aboutthe purpose and worth of the education beingmade available, but how to apply that educationcertainly emerged as its central agenda. A largenumber of teachers and other functionaries ofthe educational sector were almost forcibly

woken-up to questions about how best to teach,how best to run one’s school, and so on. Thismust be registered as a gain.

Another large-scale shift in attitudes andfunctioning is visible in the idea of theparticipatory nature of the training andworkshops. For the present, if we leaveaside the effectiveness and quality of theparticipation, and concentrate only on theverbal acceptance of the idea, there is a majorshift that is clearly discernible in anydiscourse on primary education. Again,accepting teachers as active partners inplanning and thinking about primaryeducation is a big gain in a highly stratifiedsociety where authority has always demandedunquestioning obedience. Though the depthand genuineness of this acceptance ofthe teacher as a partner is doubtful, theverbal acceptance is certainly there. Themost encouraging of these changes is theacceptance of the teacher as a textbookwriter. However we should remember thatthere is also a counter current, constantlydiminishing the stature of the teacher by creatinga spurious acceptance for the ill-paid andunprepared para-teacher.

The idea of constant academic support tothe teacher and of teachers’ forums engagedin pedagogical discourse to understandand solve their own problems have beenpopularised on a large scale. Almost allthe states now have BRCs and CRCs.The BRC and CRC are very potent ideasin terms of identifying pedagogical problems,sharply defining them and findingcontextual solutions. The centres havethe potential to become hubs of activity andcentres of generating new knowledge oneffective pedagogy.

The three above mentioned examples are a

14

pointer to the vast amount of communicationthat has taken place. The chief vehicleof pedagogical and other reformative ideasin DPEP has been the workshops,especially among the educationalfunctionaries. It would be very useful forthe purpose of the theme we are pursuinghere to understand how theseworkshops function and communicate ideas.I propose to look at these workshopsfrom three standpoints and call them simply:

in school activities and so on.” The resourceperson “compared the circumstances ofthe shepherd and the school studentand centered his discussion on the issueof usefulness/ineffectiveness of the school andthe atmosphere of learning. Accordingly a chartwas divided in two parts – one for the shepherdand the other for school students and acomparison of circumstances of both wasattempted in the manner depicted in the tablebelow.

Shepherd School Student

Can walk throughout the day. Keeps on sitting at one place.Fully indulges in crying, singing, skipping. Has to remain quiet.Takes important decisions. ----------Role in community. Dependent.Self confidence. The belief that they cannot learn.

method, content and consequences. I willdo it though in a rather integrated manner,where we will have the freedom to hopfrom the method to consequences andfrom there on to content, in any which way.

What we are analysing here isrepresentative of the majority ofworkshops organised under variousDPEP drives. I am sure there have beenworkshops that may be very differentfrom what we are analysing below.This paper does not claim to havestudied all kinds of workshops, but I thinkthere must be a really very small number ofthose different ones, the dominant majority istaken care of here.

Let us take a quick look inside a workshop:The resource person “enquired fromthe teachers about the problems faced bythem while teaching Class I. Everyone heldthat the child does not remain seated,does not express, does not take interest

“Then why should we send children toschool? The education provided today doesnot make him free like a shepherd; it makeshim dependent, the main reason being that thereis something lacking in the education, whichmakes the child a passive listener.Consequently it was unanimously decidedthat education should be such that it mayenable the child to think independently andtake interest in her studies. For this purpose,it is essential that textbooks should bewritten by persons having an experience ofteaching the class and are aware of the realneeds of the child.”31

Before we start learning lessons from this let uslook into another workshop: The objective ofthis workshop was to develop a vision of whatwould be taught to the children. One of thecritical areas explored was that of how children

31 Production of Text Books, DPEP Calling,(page16), July 1997. (Italics in the text mine).

15

learn in school and in surroundings outside theschool. It was concluded that the schoolimposed certain boundaries within which a childis given opportunities to learn whereas the childoutside the school learns on his/her own terms,free of any pressure.

Their process of learning can be explained asfollows:

claims of dubious educational worth as shownin both the tables. One wonders if any empiricalstudy will corroborate these selective comments.And even if they were true, do they warrant theconclusion that there is serious doubt whetherwe should send the child to school, rhetoricallyexpressed as a question? Then one stumblesupon a major conclusion about who should bewriting the textbooks. The belief that the

Learning at school ……characterised by Learning outside school …characterised by

Fear FearlessnessCertain impositions No impositionsLack of freedom Complete freedomDefined space of learning SpontaneityStandardised instructional content Selectiveness, choice and preference

“Obviously, learning outside the school is morefun and relaxed and allows the child to learnselectively and at a pace that suits the child.The question is … can we incorporate thesepositive elements of learning into theconditions of learning within the school?Will it be possible to allow the childrento play, enjoy their freedom, enable themto spontaneously participate inclassroom practices, narrow the distancebetween the teacher and the taught,and ensure that their levels of learningare not adversely affected. If all these areamong those desired, there would have to be aclear understanding of the changes the existingsystem would have to undergo.”32

If we want to understand the methodologyemployed in developing educationalunderstanding in the CMO model of quality weneed to analyse these two descriptions ofparticipatory and experiential workshops. Thefirst thing one notices is the string of unfounded

32 Glimmer of Hope…(page 20), 2000, UttarPradesh Education for All Board, Lucknow.(Italicsfrom the original source).

textbooks will cure all ills would be almosttouching if the logic had not been criminallyfaulty. It is nobody’s case that the textbookshould not be written by persons havingexperience of teaching and who are “aware ofthe real needs of the child.”33 There could beumpteen good reasons to uphold the claim andthey could be presented in as many ways. Whatis being said here is that the chain of reasoningfrom the shepherd to the ‘teacher as thetextbook writer’ does not hold water, ismisleading and communicates to the participantsthat anything could be deduced from anything(teaching people to disregard reasoning is thefirst step to making a religion out of pedagogy).Putting together a string of statements, whichare logically unconnected, does not form anargument, even if the statements happen to beprima facie acceptable. It is worth putting thispattern neatly together because it is so oftenused in workshops:

33 The real needs concept is extremely ambiguous.What are the criteria to declare something a need?What is the basis of a teacher’s claim to betterunderstand those needs? Any way what thoseneeds happen to be?

16

What is being claimed here is not that thepresentation of every new idea follows the samepattern, it is only that some similar pattern isfollowed. Some task, which looks obliquelyrelated to a question, is presented. A livelydiscussion is generated (lively need notnecessarily mean focused, connected, rigorous,or informed), participation is ensured, and theconsensus arrived at is summed up by theresource person. The impression retained byevery one is that of discussion and some mightget a feeling that they have contributed to thefinal conclusion. What actually happens is thattheir statements happened to serve as props tothe predetermined conclusions. (See Appendix1). That is why workshops held at differentplaces, at different times, reach the sameconclusion, almost verbatim. How uninformed,scattered and misleading these discussions couldbe is shown by the two examples above. If thiscriticism seems too harsh one should see theunderstanding of the child, learning, subjectareas and various other concept papersgenerated through this process.

The idea of school is disposed off in theseexamples with a few remarks, the nature oflearning outside the school is established to besuperior and preferable in comparison to thatin the school, and therefore, the need to changethe school to suit this new thinking is established;though there is not a ghost of reasonablewarrant for these conclusions. Just to have aglimpse of what is so lightly discredited let ussee what Michel Oakeshott has to say aboutschool. “The idea ‘school’ is, in the first place,that of a serious and orderly initiation into anintellectual, moral and emotional inheritance; aninitiation designed for children who are readyto embark on it. Superimposed on these chanceencounters with fragments of understanding,these moments of unlooked-for enlightenmentand those answers are imperfectly understoodbecause they are answers to unaskedquestions, there is a considered curriculum oflearning to direct and contain the thoughts ofthe learner, to focus his attention and to provokehim to distinguish and to discriminate. ‘School’is the recognition that the first and most

Queue 1 fromRP

Queue2 from RP

Generatesexpectations

A light task

A new task is given

Expectation that thenew task will show light

Provocative statements areselected

RP freezes the task

?

All forget originalexpectation andquestion

Lively discussion onstatements from tasktwo

New conclusionswhich make theoriginal questionredundant

17

important step in education is to become awarethat ‘learning’ is not a ‘seamless robe’, thatpossibilities are not limitless.”

“Secondly, it is an engagement to learn by study.This is a difficult undertaking; it calls for effort.Whereas playful occupations are broken offwhenever they have provided immediatesatisfaction, learning is a task to be perseveredwith. What is learned has to be both understoodand remembered. It is in this perseverance, thisdiscipline of inclination, that the indispensablehabits of attention, concentration, patience,exactitude, courage and intellectual honesty areacquired, and the learner comes to recognisethat difficulties are to be surmounted, notevaded.”34 Yes, one may discard the viewargued for by Oakeshott, but it deserves moreserious thought before being discarded.

Numerous workshops have been conducted inDPEP; thousands of educational personnel andhundreds of thousands of teachers haveparticipated in them. Certainly there areimplications of all this for teacher training andhow the teachers function in a classroom. Sincethe workshops have been the predominant modeof capacity building the whole exercise has alsopropagated a certain view of capacity buildingitself, some important features of this view aredescribed below.

One, it seems that the workshop has beenaccepted as the major source of newactivities, knowledge and understandinguseful in primary education. The workshopis expected to be participatory and, ofcourse, like the classroom, activity-basedand enjoyable. The resource person is

responsible for making the workshopenjoyable, he/she is expected to motivate,hold participants’ attention and cull outdigestible nuggets of knowledge from the‘lively’ discussion he/she is supposed to beable to generate.

Two, a good discussion is the lively one. Adiscussion is supposed to be lively whenpeople speak with gusto and many want tospeak (do not get into the impression thatreally “everyone” participates with therequired gusto, even if the reports say thatrepeatedly). Other measures of qualities ofa discussion – for example, focussed,connected in terms of linkages between whatthe participants are saying, logically rigorous,etc. – are not important. If you ask peopleto keep to the point, you are curtailing theirfreedom and are against participatory mode.If you insist upon understanding theargument’s validity you are hair splitting,which is a horrendous activity without anymerit as far as primary education isconcerned.

Three, serious reading on the concept ofeducation, teaching, learning, the child,ways of learning etc. is useless, theeducational best sellers express the wholetruth in a much better fashion. Anywayreading makes one become bookish and tootheoretical. Theory, as is well known, has gotnothing to do with good practice.

Four, the workshop mode has developed awhole epistemology of its own. In thisepistemology all knowledge is “within”,certainly within the group in the workshop.It is articulated through discussion. Whatthe resource person summarises is theunanimous view (only if the resource personhas proved his/her credentials by adheringto rules outlined in point two above), even

34 Oakeshott, M., Education: The engagement andits frustrations, in Education and Reason, Editedby Dearden, Peters and Hirst, 1975, RKP, Londonand Boston.

18

if he/she selects only what suits his/herpurpose. What is unanimously agreed uponis the truth.

All this is especially clear in the concept ofvisioning. The educational vision of an individualis a result of her total understanding. It developsover a period of time, normally long drawn, asit has to encompass the totality of human life,desirable as well as situated in less thansatisfactory conditions. It involves her entirevalue structure and understanding. In thisperspective what sense does the act of“visioning” here and now make? Is it“imagining”? Or is it a serious analysis of onesown beliefs and assumptions about life toactively construct a vision of educationconsistent with them? It is extremely unrealistic,to say the least, to believe that people canarticulate succinctly their own deepestassumptions and can immediately use them to‘envision visions’ of education in conjunctionwith others. Yes, development of a sharedunderstanding of the world as well as ofeducation can be started, a beginning could bemade, and questions could be raised. But avisioning workshop communicates much more.It makes visioning almost a playful activity thatdispenses with all toil and sweat, and stillproduces a brand new shining vision, and sharedby all on top of that. The narrow range ofquestions posed to formulate vision and the kindof conclusions reached bear out the aboveanalysis.

The four points made above describe ageneralised, ‘culled-out workshop’. Suchworkshops become a mechanism of certifyingcertain opinions as valid knowledge withoutrigorous examination. They produce a falseconfidence and do not enhance reflection. Thepropagated pedagogy becomes a dogma. Thiscreates an increasing demand for more of thesame, more activities which could be handed

down to the teacher, more tricks of the trade tobe used in the teacher training, and so on. Thisdemand for more activities and workshopmethods could be easily mistaken for a hungerfor knowledge.

This is not particularly a problem of DPEPcapacity building alone though. The workshopmode of capacity building, in the absence ofother opportunities of sustained study and ofgood literature on education, would always pushtowards simplistic and easily marketablepackages of educational understanding andcapabilities. This coupled with the pressure oftime and huge coverage in the project modeleaves little room for something more seriousand relatively better grounded in the educationalknowledge base. Also, we must note that, mostof the resource persons do not use thisepistemology deliberately to raise unfoundedopinions to the status of sacred knowledge incorroboration with a community of educators.It is the dynamics of the methods which leadsthem into the trap, often without their consciousknowledge. It takes withdrawing and broodingto notice the pattern. The important questionhowever is: Can the situation be turned into onewhere better-informed decision-makingbecomes a norm and the teacher starts thinkingindependently? I tend to believe it is not onlypossible but that the work alreadyaccomplished can be used to advantage. Thiswe will explore in the final section of this paper.

An alternative framework for quality ofeducation

Every notion of quality of education assumes aconceptual framework within which wedeliberate on various issues concerning practicaland theoretical problems and justify thedecisions we make. When we talk of qualitywithout talking of that framework, it is eitherunfounded assertions or we assume a shared

19

framework. Since I want to avoid makingunfounded assertions and am not sure of anagreement about a shared framework, I betterstart by presenting briefly the framework I willbe using. I assume that an education system canbe adequately characterised by a frameworkof the following interrelated components:

1. Aims,2. Curriculum,3. Pedagogy (in the sense of methodology) and

material,4. School organisation, relationships

(ambience), and5. Evaluation.

Each one of these components needs a bit ofexplanation as to what they mean in thisframework.1. Aims: “Any education system will have aimsof some kind even if they are concealed and/or implicit. “A society that fails to articulate oreven be clear about the aims of its educationsystem will most likely enjoy a second-rate one,because some of the most substantial interestsin society will not have a chance to articulatewhat they want from education, thus loosing thechance that their interests will be represented,leading to a danger of disillusionment andcontempt for the institution of education itself.The formulation of the aims of the publiceducation system is, therefore, a vital task forany democratic society which aims to have aneffective education system that commands theconfidence of all sections of society.”35 It isnecessary to have unambiguous aims to makemeaningful decisions regarding curriculum,pedagogy and so on. It is hardly imaginable tohave an education system without aims. Andstill, as we saw, the CMO model of quality has

no use for them. How, then, are the decisionsmade, without the direction of aims beingavailable? Actually the direction is always there,what is avoided is the articulation and criticalexamination of it. Dearden explains,(interestingly in connection with the child-centered tradition). “The implicit structure of theevasion is this: (i) leave alone any attempt tothoroughly discuss aims you have in mind; (ii)at a more concrete level, enter into discoursewhich can in fact be engaged in only if youraims are already tacitly presupposed; (iii) theneveryone will be so absorbed in the detail asnot to notice the overall direction in which youare going.”36 Articulation of aims is stronglyinfluenced by the notion of human beings wehave, the kind of society we want to live in,socio-political views we subscribe to, ourculture, value system, and similar considerations.How children learn and how much they canlearn at what age are not really importantconsiderations at this stage.

2. Curriculum: Curriculum as used in thisframework has two closely connected butconceptually distinguishable components; one,the objectives – stage specific and keeping thedirection aligned with aims; and two, the contentof education – that which is to be learned –abilities, skills, concepts, facts; or say,knowledge, skills, values and ways ofknowledge construction. This is what we aresupposed to teach the children in order that theymay realise the general aims of education. Thecurricular objectives are governed by threekinds of considerations: one, the aims ofeducation; two, epistemological considerationslike what part of knowledge is of a morefundamental and generic nature, and how thecurriculum should be organised; and three, how

35 Winch, Christopher, Quality and Education, TheJournal of Philosophy of Education Society of GreatBritain, Blackwell, 1996.

36 Dearden, R. F., The Philosophy of PrimaryEducation,( Page 52), ELBS and Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1970.

20

much children can learn at what age. Thecurriculum content is guided by the objectives,epistemological considerations anddevelopmental curve of children’s abilities andinterests, and the child’s context; not necessarilyin that order.

3. Pedagogy and material: Pedagogy sometimesis used in a very broad sense to encompass thewhole theory and practice of education. Here Iam using the term in a rather narrower avatar,meaning the science of teaching, the teachingmethodology in more day-to-day language. Theaims and curriculum define what is to be taughtand for what purpose, the pedagogy is to informon how to teach. Pedagogy has to conform tothe aims and the curriculum, and is informed bythe theories of learning, child development, thechild’s context and the child’s interests. As isobvious by now, the CMO notion of quality isaware of educational issues from here onwardswhile it ignores the earlier two points completely.The teaching-learning material, logicallyspeaking, is more of a part of the pedagogythan curriculum, unless the term curriculum isused in the sense of total experience providedin the school (which is not the sense here). Inthat case all other categories listed here exceptaims become sub-categories of the curriculum.In the present framework, the teaching-learningmaterial is seen essentially as part of pedagogy.

4. School organisation: School organisationincludes wide ranging decisions regarding havingor doing away with grades, distribution ofworkload among the teachers, distribution ofresponsibilities regarding various infrastructuralfacilities, and so on. Obviously the schoolorganisation has to meet the demands of thepedagogy.

5. Relationships: Relationships here are meantto be relationships between the teacher and thetaught, between the children, with the

community and so on. Relationships in theschool are governed by the nature of educationalendeavour. Here the teacher, children and thecommunity are not just members of a societyand persons in their own right. They are boundto each other by a common endeavour ofimparting education to the children and,therefore, these relationships are governed bythe cherished ideals and values of thatendeavour.

6. Evaluation: A constantly alert system thatkeeps track of children’s learning as well as thefunctioning of various systems. The methods ofevaluation have to conform to the aims,curriculum and pedagogy, and not otherwise.Giving evaluation priority over the pedagogyand curriculum is a sure way of wagging thedog by the tail.

This framework could be used for educationaldecision-making as well as for developing anotion of quality. At the first glance it may looksimplistic, that is partly due to lack of spaceand partly deliberate. A teacher can start usingthis framework to improve, or even to designhis school from the very beginning. As the needsbecome more complex, knowledge moreadvanced and understanding moresophisticated, the framework unfurls itself andcan become more sophisticated; one, throughdeveloping subcategories, and two, by enrichingthe network of interrelationships between thevarious elements.

The positions we take on aims of education,curriculum, pedagogy, etc. depend on valueswe cherish, and beliefs and assumptions weaccept. These values, beliefs and assumptionsmay be more or less informed and more or lessjustifiable in the face of reason. The beliefs andassumptions most important for education canbe organised into four broad areas:

21

(i) Philosophy of education: beliefsconcerned with the nature of humanbeings, society, socio-political beliefsand ideologies, nature of knowledge,construction and organisation ofknowledge, etc.

(ii) Human learning: beliefs concerningepistemology and theories of learning,the nature of learning, it’s scope and itsfoundations.

(iii) The socio-cultural environment: Beliefs

learning programmes for children, to be ableto critique curriculum and pedagogy and tobe able to develop her own methodsand appropriate activities, a teacher hasto explore and learn to reflect on theseissues as well. Accumulated information oncurriculum and pedagogy or drill in classroomtechniques alone is unlikely to develop a teacheror teacher trainer to handle efficiently all theissues relating to quality improvement andpedagogical reform.

This framework could be presented graphicallybelow:

Philosophy of Education: Beliefsabout humans, society, knowledge,etc.

Human Learning: Nature of humanlearning, scope, foundations, theoriesof learning, etc.

Socio-cultural Environment: Beliefsabout socio-political, economic scenario;context of the child, etc.

The child: Beliefs concerning the child, hernature, her development et al.

EDUCATION

Aims

Curriculm: Objectives,curricular content - conceptsand abilities, information andskills, etc.

Pedagogy and material

School organisation

Relationships

Evaluation

concerning the national socio-political,economic scenario and the context ofthe child.

(iv) The child: beliefs concerning the child,her nature, her development and so on.

The clarity, usefulness and justifiability of thepositions taken by us, are likely to be influencedby our understanding in these areas. To beempowered and independent in developing

Now we shall try to evolve a notion of qualityon the basis of this framework. It is possible tolook at the quality from outside the framework,e.g. when we compare two different systemsof education, and from within the frameworkwhen we have agreed upon the framework first.Looking at the quality from outside theframework would entail first evaluating theframework and then the efficiency of what isbeing done in the schools. I would suggest thatthe quality of the framework itself may be

22

A Conceptual Framework for Education

considered to be defined by itscomprehensiveness to address the widest rangeof issues, its consistency, its resilience toaccommodate a wide range of local andindividual differences without loosing directionand coherence, its ability to provide directionwhile at the same time respecting the freedomof the user (teacher, curriculum developer, etc.).Clearly autonomy, reason and equity areassumed values even in these remarks;otherwise there would be no justification forinsisting on comprehensiveness, consistency,freedom etc.

Here we are more concerned with quality fromwithin the framework. As the frameworkpresented above is just a structure, and aimsetc. are not specified, we will have to put somesubstance into it in order to be able to talk ofquality. Developing the entire framework,complete with specifications in each component,would not be possible here due to constraintsof space. Therefore, we will start with theminimum filling up of the blanks and see howwe progress. Clearly the quality of a school andclassroom processes would make no sensewithout reference to what the children arelearning there. Even if a group of children lookvery happy and their teacher is very nice to themand involved with lots of activities, one wouldnot be able to say anything about the quality ofthis classroom until one knows the purpose ofwhat is going on. That means that the qualityalways refers to the objectives of the activity,which in this case shall always refer to the aimsof education. Therefore, we need to be suppliedwith the aims of education in our framework totalk about quality. Suppose the agreed uponaims of education are “development of reason,autonomy, sensitivity to others and ability tolearn manual skills quickly”. This kind ofarticulation of aims will not help us unless wecan connect it to the objectives at the primarystage of education. In order to have this much-

needed interface we are in need of furtherinformation about:

(i) the child’s socio-cultural and naturalenvironment.

(ii) how children learn, (differing accountsof learning processes will generatedifferent objectives).

(iii) the knowledge, skills and attitudes andvalues that are most beneficial for thedevelopment of reason, autonomy, etc.

(iv) the order of teaching all that from thepsychological and epistemologicalpoints of view.

This brings us to the stage where we may beable to formulate our objectives and put certainthings in the curriculum as well. Suppose weformulated our objectives for the primary stageas “helping the child become an interested andindependent learner, be sensitive to and respectother people, and learn manual skills at anappropriate level”. This may enable us toconstruct a broad notion of quality, again inconjunction with a host of other information,assumptions and beliefs. This exercise was onlyto show that constructing a meaningful notionof quality needs a reference framework with alot of detailing.

In the direction we are progressing here, at anappropriate level our notion of quality might looksomewhat like this:1. The children:

(i) Their ability and eagerness to learnnew things appropriate to their level(defined in the curriculum) andconfidence in learning that.

(ii) Quantum of their learningachievements, confidence, ability touse and conceptual clarity in what

23

has been learnt.(iii) Respect, friendliness and concern

shown for friends and otherpeople.

2. The teacher:(i) Clarity of understanding about

education, the curriculum andsubject areas.

(ii) An understanding of the teachinglearning methods.

(iii) Ability to understand the child’slearning process, pinpoint thedifficulty and help her appropriately.

(iv) Ability to organise classroomprocesses to the optimal benefit ofthe children.

(v) Respect and care shown to thechildren and other people.

3. Classroom Interaction:(i) Engagement with learning that

encourages critical thinking andcreativity.

(ii) Encouragement as well asappropriate guidance available tothe children.

(iii) Co-operation in learning and timespent on task.

(iv) Enthusiasm, absence of fear andstern discipline, and friendliness inthe atmosphere.

4. Curriculum:(i) Appropriate from the point of view

of aims.(ii) Internal consistency.(iii) Understanding the nature of

knowledge and appropriateorganisation of knowledge.

(iv) Appropriateness in terms ofchildren’s developmental stages.

(v) Relationship to the child’s context.

5. Teaching-Learning Material:(i) Appropriateness in terms of the

curriculum.(ii) Possibilities for learning

independently.(iii) Attractiveness, ease in handling, etc.

production related parameters.(iv) Equipment availability.

6. Infrastructure:(i) Classrooms – light, space, storage

etc.(ii) Campus – secure, clean, etc.(iii) Facilities.

7. Relationship with the community:(i) Mutual respect between the school

and the community.(ii) Co-operation and interest taken by

the community.

The structure given above is indicative and notexhaustive. It is based on the referenceframework for education given above andtherefore further detailing would demandappropriate detailing in that framework. Eachsub-point may generate more than one indicatorto understand the quality of the school. Thepurpose here is only to indicate the broadstructure of a framework and the resultantnotion of quality of the school, complete detailswill make a book out of this paper which weneed not attempt here.

What has reached the ground?

The views expressed below are formed on thebasis of reading available literature includingmaterial of a few states and classroom studies,observation of a limited number ofgeographically widely distributed schools,intense interaction with national, state anddistrict level DPEP functionaries, andobservation of a limited number of trainings.

24

The idea that there is a need to be sensitive tothe child as a person and her learning processeshas been widely disseminated. The specificcontent of the idea as to what it means to besensitive, and to what exactly in a child’s natureetc. one needs to be sensitive about, seems tobe doubtful. In any case, the child is certainlyconsidered relatively more precious and worthyof respect. And this is not a small gain even ifits impact on the practice is still in doubt.

The quality of the school has come into focus.The classrooms are better kept, and perhapsmany more teachers are aware of the need toimprove teaching methods, than there wereearlier to DPEP efforts. Also the programmehas communicated to the teachers and peoplein general in DPEP districts that something needsto be done to improve the schools, and alsothat attempts are being made in this respect.

Availability of material and textbooks hasimproved in most of the states. The classroomstudies also capture instances of effective useof the material. The availability of various kindsof teachers’ books, manuals, and textbooksdoes help teachers and improves teachermotivation. The quality of the material isfrequently appreciated, and there is a definiteimprovement as compared to the earlier books.Perhaps the biggest gain of the programme sofar is the improved textbooks. The attempt ofmany states to develop a comprehensivepackage is especially note worthy andcommendable, in spite of all the problems. Ihave not analysed these aspects in greater detailas they are frequently appreciated points. Ifound it more useful at this stage to concentrateon the limited and at places misleadingunderstanding of issues in education, which noone comments about. Not devoting more spaceto these improvements does not mean that theyare ignored.

Furthermore the continuous talk of activity-based teaching has resulted in various kinds ofefforts to teach children through more activepedagogy, though the quality of these activitiesvaries hugely.

However what is lacking is the following:The teacher is unable to practice in areflective manner and depends on theactivities supplied to her. This trend of questfor activities is wide spread. In a nationalworkshop state level functionaries werevery upset that no new activities werebeing supplied to them, what wouldthey show as the gain of attendinganother national level workshop if there areno activities to take back home! The ideathat teaching in school is an engagementwith the mind of the child and suitableactivities could be generated, if need be, thereand then only, is a far cry.

Education is understood and approached in anarrow perspective. It is so completely boundby three subject areas that absence of art(aesthetic appreciation) and dexterity to workwith hands go unnoticed. The three subject areasthemselves are supposed to be completelycontained in competencies. The inconsistencyof detailed lesson-wise plans for the whole classand preaching about child sensitive free-pacedlearning is unnoticed. There are numerous suchinconsistencies related with further month-wisedivision of curriculum, testing methodsdeveloped etc., that pull the teacher in twodifferent directions and do not help her todevelop a coherent vision of education.

The idea of education for democracy anddevelopment of critical thinking is far from theteachers’ ideals as well as practices. Theprogramme itself does not seem to be tooconcerned with these ideas.

25

A few ideas which may contribute tosustained attempts at quality improvement

1. Development of DIETs as institutions ofeducational excellence: The biggestweakness of DPEP to my mind is, that itwas started without adequate understandingof what educational reform might mean. Itdid not make enough effort to generateacademically sound educational theoriesthat could inspire the practitioner andprovide practical guidance of a reliablenature. This needs to be done on a verylarge scale, a dynamics of educationalthought and action has to be started if thequality improvement is to become a reality.It seems to be possible to build upon theefforts already made by the DPEP in termsof bringing quality of education on theagenda. For this the educational discourseinitiated in the schools, CRCs and BRCsneed to gain depth and rigour. Qualityeducational programmes demand morethan just slogans and an ‘epistemology ofsuperficial consensus’. The rich educationalthought and research should inform theefforts. The DIETs can be developed tokeep abreast with the educational thoughtand research world over and work outimplications for educational efforts in theirown district. To develop DIETs as centresof educational excellence, the DIETpersonnel would need to spend time andenergy in studying education and preparingthemselves, forming a sound academic basetakes time. The idea is not to swallow asmany educational theories as fast aspossible, it is rather to develop a criticalfaculty to assess the worth of educationalideas and see their implications.

2. Availability of serious educational thoughtin accessible form: The material availableto the Hindi reader is more in the nature of

educational best sellers. There have been afew recent attempts to make availableeducational classics and relatively moreserious educational thought. But still thereis a need to do much more in this direction.Every workshop in DPEP revolves aroundthe child’s ways of learning, but there ishardly any authentic material available tothe teacher to read on the subject. Onlythe availability of authentic material inaccessible form can break the spell ofworkshop modes of producing knowledgeand help generate a deeper, more informeddiscourse on education. A whole culture ofeducational magazines and journals has tobe developed to keep the idea of qualityeducation centre stage. Good qualityteachers’ journals linking theory andpractice can inform the practice and helpinvolve teachers in theory building. Theseideas can be initially tried in a few districtswith the help of individuals and groups withrequisite capabilities.

3. Teachers and their quality: The idea ofgetting less and less expensive, andtherefore, less and less qualified teachershas to be abandoned. Well-qualifiedteachers and better pre-service professionalcourses will be needed for sustainablequality improvement. Opportunities forteachers to improve upon their professionalcapabilities would have to be created tosustain their interest. Quality improvementin primary education without attempts todevelop teaching as a profession isimpossible. Teaching as a profession is notviable where there are a large number ofill-paid part-time workers doing the job.Therefore, the spreading of the para-teacher phenomenon has to be contained.

4. Teacher-Child ratio: Most of the states havean average teacher-pupil ratio between 1:40

26

and 1:50, and the variations across theschools are still large. Unless seriousattempts are made to improve upon it andthe teacher-pupil ratio is brought into therange of 1:40 to 1:30, pedagogicalimprovement would be extremely difficultto bring about and impossible to sustain.

5. General implementation and infrastructure:In spite of all the talk about providing school

buildings and material etc. there arethousands of schools without adequateclassrooms and textbooks. Unless theseschools are provided with buildings andmaterial, talk of classroom quality does notmake much sense to them. Also generalimplementation of the programme needs tobe improved. Strong BRCs and CRCswould go a long way in improvingimplementation.

27

Appendix 1

In a training HallAbout thirty to thirty-five teachers wereworking in groups of five or six each. Twotrainers were present and were going round theroom to see how the work was progressing.When the visitor enquired about the activity inprogress, the trainers explained that a discussionpaper is given and each group is deliberatingon one of the five questions posed through thediscussion paper. The visitor requested for acopy of the discussion paper, which the trainerssaid they have developed. An English translation

up, one by one, and presented their view.All the group members were sitting together.After they finished the other participantscontinued the same exercise, stood up oneby one, had their say and sat down. Thetrainer just repeated “thik hai”, “Ji”, “bahutachha”, “very good”. Once, when aparticipant said that the child is like wet clay,the trainer immediately rebuked him, “What?The child is like wet clay, does not have life?Does not have any rights? Sit down.” Theparticipant sat down and the process continued.When about 15 participants had had their saythe trainer abandoned the process of going inorder and asked one particular participant,leaving about 8 people in between. “What isyour view?”

“The child is a plant (not is “like a plant”,“baccha ek paudha hai”). He should benurtured like a plant is nurtured with water andcompost (khad-pani).”

The trainer responded, “Correct. Did you hearRespected Sirs (Manyavar), the child is like aplant to be nurtured, he is not an empty pot,not wet clay, nor an unbaked pot, he is like aplant. Very good.”

Then the next group members were asked toexpress their views on whether what childrenlearn in the first eight years is very important,unforgettable and fixed for all time. Again theparticipants expressed their views one by one.There was no discussion and no commentsapart from “thik hai”, “Ji”, “bahut achha”,and “very good”. Again the procedure of goingin order was abandoned in the middle, and thesame participant was asked to express his view.“The first eight years are very important. Thechild’s senses are very sharp during this time.What he learns is important and permanent, butif he has learnt something wrong it can bechanged, though not easily”, he said.

Discussion Paper Time 15 minutes

1. What is a child in your view -a. An empty pot which is to be filled.b. Wet clay which is to be mouled.c. A plant which is to be watered.d. An unbaked clay pot which is to be baked.

2. What children learn in the first eight years is veryimportant, and it is difficult to change.(Agree/disagree/somewhat agree)

3. Children learn (more) by doing by themselves, andless by doing by themselves, and less by imitation.(Agree/disagree/somewhat agree)

4. What is relationship between the process of learningand mistakes? Why are mistakes made?

5. What (among the following) a teacher should be inyour view :a. Facilitatorb. Learned manc. Friendd. Something else.

of the discussion paper is given in the box. Thediscussion paper is straight from one of themanuals.

After the allotted time the group work wasstopped and everyone sat along the walls. Thetrainer stood near the black board. He startedwith the first question and asked each memberof the group which was deliberating upon it toexpress his or her view. Group members stood

28

“Correct”, the trainer said. “Did you hearRespected Sirs, the first eight years areimportant but wrong things learnt can bechanged. Very good.”

Now the members of the third group wereasked to share their views on whether childrenlearn by “doing themselves” or through imitation.Again, the same one by one procedure wasabandoned in the middle and the sameparticipant was asked to have his say. Againhis answer was found to be “correct”. In all thefive questions the same man was found to becorrect, he was always asked to speak afterdiscontinuing the ‘one-by-one in order’procedure. The visitor later on discovered thatall the correct answers were from the trainingmanual. There was only one dispute (that too

unsuccessful) about an answer before theteacher was declared to be a facilitator(sugamkarta) and not a learned man (gyanior jnani). An old teacher made an impassionedplea to pay attention to the fact that someonewho does not have adequate knowledge cannotbe a teacher, and therefore, a teacher has to bea learned man. His view was shot down by thetrainer without giving any reasons.

Maybe this was an exceptional training, but thevisitor saw another one which was no better.Still this could be the story of one district andeverywhere else the training may be going onvery well. But there is also a possibility that thisis how the majority of training workshops areconducted!

29

REFLECTIONS ON THE PROGRESS OF DPEPWITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UTTAR PRADESH

Dr. Brigid Smith

Introduction

The state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) is one of thelargest in India in terms of both demographyand population. With 166 million inhabitants, itcurrently accounts for 16.17 per cent of thecountry’s population.1 Extending from theoutskirts of Delhi and the well-wateredfarmlands and industrial outposts of the capitalto a dusty and remote interior, it is hemmed onone side by the Himalaya foothills (which nowform the new bifurcated state of Uttaranchal)and by Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh on theother. The density of population in UP is amongthe highest in India (689 per sq km against 324for the country as a whole); it also has a highbirth rate. The ratio of women to men is 898females per 1000 males and there is still a 28per cent lag in female literacy, although overallliteracy rates have improved to an average57.36 per cent since the 1991 census.2 Thelow female literacy rate and the high incidenceof poverty in the state are considered the mainreasons for its backwardness and theGovernment of Uttar Pradesh (GOUP) hasmade concerted efforts to universaliseeducation, with particular focus on girls andminority communities.

Launched in 17 districts in 1993 withInternational Development Agency (IDA)funding, the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education

Project (UPBEP) was completed in September2000. DPEP-II was started in 18 educationallybackward districts in 1997 and expanded to afurther four districts in July 1999. Of theremaining 44 districts, the 38 with the lowestfemale literacy rate (below the national averageof 39.3 per cent) were taken up under DPEP-III.

I first visited UP in 1994 as part of variousmissions for UPBEP and subsequently workedwith officers and the State Council forEducational Research and Training (SCERT)in developing supplementary readers forClasses I-V. It has been very interesting to re-visit UP in 2001 after the huge inputs fromDPEP-II and III and to observe the changesthat have taken place in the state. The marathontask of UPBEP was concentrated in the poorestdistricts and visits to remote schools during myearlier visits gave a picture of communitiesisolated by poverty and ignorance, withdisinterested teachers and uninvolved people.Initially, the main thrust was to build schools,Block (BRCs) and Cluster Resource Centres(CRCs), to set up teacher training programmesand to complete a baseline for learningachievement. A considerable amount of timeand effort was spent up ladders inspecting roofbeams, measuring the flood-level threshold offoundations and learning to rub mortar betweenthe fingers to judge whether the cement contentwas all that it should be.

Communities did not always respect their newschool buildings and teachers were de-motivated by finding classrooms spoiled and

1 2001. Status Report on DPEP II. UP Educationfor All Project Board.

2 2001 Census of India Provisional PopulationTotals. Registrar General of India.

30

filthy when they came to school in the morning.In 2001, it was a great pleasure to open a newschool in a remote area of Meerut with garlands,ribbon-cutting and blessings. This schoolbuilding represented one of the five new designs;brightly coloured, with two hexagonal wings anda multicoloured roof rising to a point at eachend, the school was attracting a great deal oflocal attention. The devolved responsibility forfunding and building, the close relationship withthe engineers’ department and the involvementof the Pradhan (head of the village) and manyvillage workers meant that the pride in the schoolemanated from the community itself. Inside thebright classrooms, where light and air circulated,two classes were already full of children (22 inClasses I-III and 12 in Classes IV-V) althoughthe school had only been open for a few months.Several children had transferred from nearbyprivate schools and were happily learning. Thehead-teacher and a Shiksha Mitra (SM) wereteaching the children, as many girls as boys, ina multi-grade situation. All children hadtextbooks, the teacher had planned the lessonusing the new Teacher Guide and there werecharts, teaching-learning materials (TLM) andmats to sit on in the classroom. It would besimplistic to imagine that every school in UPhas now evolved to this state; nevertheless, thisexemplifies the kind of benchmark of resourcesand conditions that are required for effectiveeducation to take place. The biggest change Isaw was perhaps in the faces of the children.They were bright and eager, keen to performtheir songs and games and replying to questionswith a confident grace and interest. Photographsfrom earlier visits show pinched faces andunkempt, frightened children; when one of thebaseline researchers tried to move a child fromone part of the veranda to another, they shrankaway and began to cry.

In 2001 I visited nine schools, a small sample. Iwas conscious, of course, that as a member of

a reviewing mission, people wanted me to seethe best that there was to see. In visiting Meerutdistrict I was already visiting one of the moredeveloped parts of UP, but in many ways it wasgood to be able to see the impact of DPEPinputs in a situation where the basic conditionswere not so overwhelmingly adverse as to makeprogress unlikely. The development of qualityin primary education, the present focus ofDPEP, can really only take place when the basicconditions for learning and teaching are in place.The Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari (ABSA)in Meerut referred to quality of primary schoolsbeing ‘at its worst’ and recognised that therewas a very long way to go in order to improveprimary schooling. An indication of the needfor quality improvement in Meerut is the factthat it is estimated that over 51 per cent ofchildren are enrolled in private schools, manyof them unrecognised.

Putting in a place an efficient, equitable andquality government school system is the currentintention of the UP State Government, with adeclared goal of education for all by 2005. InMeerut, a fairly recent DPEP-III district, therewas a feeling of buzzing enthusiasm and intereston the part of children and more confident andopen kind of teachers, proud of theirclassrooms and resources, many of which wereself-made. The community now seem to havean ownership of their schools and feel involvedin many issues — ranging from enrolment andout-of-school children to the curriculum.

This report, then, is partly a celebration ofachievements seen and potential developmentsidentified, and partly an attempt to see UPDPEPin the larger context of the state, India and otherprimary educational reforms. In particular, itfocuses on issues related to capacity buildingfor teachers, girls’ education, the communityinvolvement in education and the alternativeschooling (AS) that is being developed for

31

minority communities. Having been afforded anopportunity to reflect on DPEP from theperspective of a teacher, the narrative is derivedfrom observation and experience, rather thanan attempt to replicate other reports wherestatistics and project reportage exhibit anobjectivity which I lay no claim to here.

The Reform of Primary Education

The reform of primary education is a worldwidemovement emanating from the original Jomtienconference (held in Thailand in 1990) andmotivating all countries to try to achieveeducation for all in the near future. Reforms havebeen provoked by a growing realisation thatlearning the ‘content’ of a curriculum cannotmeet the demands of the modern world where‘learning how to learn’ is more important thanjust learning facts to regurgitate. This kind oflearning starts pre-school and the primary yearsare critical in developing self-motivated andreflective learners who are able to solveproblems and to generalise and apply theirlearning to real life situations. The rhetoric ofthe Government of India (GOI) puts the capacitybuilding and support of the teacher, and thedevelopment of the individual child throughinteractive and experiential education, as acentral tenet, as indeed do the governmentalstatements of many other countries undertakingreforms of their primary education system.There remain, however, huge gaps between therhetoric about primary education and theactuality of the classroom. The rhetoric supportsthe teacher; the directives serve to constrain,centralise and direct. The child is central in theidealistic statements; the actuality is often areduction of the individual child to a number tofulfil the needs of bureaucrats to meet enrolmenttargets.3 Assessment procedures seem

designed to exclude and to rank order schoolsrather than to monitor individual progress. InUK, where extensive government-drivenreforms claim to support teachers and topromote children’s individual learning, there hasbeen increasing centralisation and curtailmentof teachers’ freedom to interpret the curriculumresulting in an increasingly large deficit in thenumber of teachers, particularly in inner cityschools.4

The reform of basic education in UP wasstimulated by the need to develop theeducational capacity of a state overwhelmedby numbers, poverty and slow progress indevelopment. The inequality of women, the lagin the female birth rate ratio and the paucity ofgirls in formal education were contributoryfactors to the particular emphasis on girls’education and the enrolment of girls. The riseof strong advocacy groups for women’s rights5

and the growth of Non-GovernmentalOrganisations (NGOs) working directly withwomen in the field of literacy and incomegeneration have supported and pressurised thegovernment in the reforms undertaken toencourage the enrolment of girls. SpecificGOUP initiatives6 at state level include:

� Free education for girls up to graduation;� Facilitation for women and girls to receive

certification by appearing for the Class Vand Class VIII end-of-cycle examinations,thus enabling them to continue in mainstreameducation if they wish;

� Employment of SMs as para-teachers, ofwhom 50 per cent should be women, inorder to reduce the teacher-pupil ratio

3 Dankhar, Rohit. 2000. Conference paper at theCambridge ‘Voices for All’ conference.

4 Urquhart, I. 2001. Cambridge Educational Review.5 1999-2000 Annual Report of Mahila Samahkya,

UP.6 2000. Making a Difference: Primary Education for

Girls in UP. UP Education for All Project Board.

32

(TPR) and to improve the availability ofwomen teachers, particularly in remote andone-teacher rural schools; and

� The launch of the Balika Shiksha Missionin 1999 for girls aged 6-14 years unable toattend mainstream schooling.

Apart from conveying a message about theimportance given to girls’ education by theGOUP, the institutionalisation of reforms at statelevel makes it far more likely that they will besustainable. A number of other reform measuresat governmental level have contributed to theslow but sustained growth in primary educationin UP. The 1999 delegation of the managementof basic education to Panchayat Raj Institutions(PRIs) encouraged communities to managetheir own educational programmes. It alsoserved to devolve accountability to the locallevel, making the community responsible foroverseeing the education of all children in thecommunity — whether girls, out-of-school orfrom minority groups.

The most recent, and potentially the mostimportant reform in UP in terms of reducingclass size and pupil-teacher teacher ratio andimproving teacher quality has been the recenthike in teachers’ salaries. This gives all teachersa good, basic wage and in return demands fromthem improved attendance, improved efforts inteaching and accountability to both thegovernment and the local community. It wouldseem that this is a basic condition for improvingeducational standards. It has wide implicationsand experiences in other countries have shownthat reform in teaching standards is difficultwhere teachers still require additional incomein order to support their families. In Sri Lanka,Pakistan and Bangladesh, the ubiquitous ‘tuition’system has meant that some teachers do notcover the whole syllabus in class in order toearn from tutoring children during after-schoolhours. This can impede overall quality

improvement in the classroom and particularlyimpacts on poor people who are not ableto help their children at home. Pakistan andother parts of India have tried overcoming theproblem of class size by providing a secondteacher in single-teacher schools, although thishas sometimes been used as a ‘cover’ deviceallowing each teacher in turn to farm or work inanother capacity. The growth of extra para-teachers with community accountability is nowreversing this trend.

Most encouraging of all are the efforts of theGOUP to link DPEP educational inputs andreforms to the work of state and districtadministrations. Since 1993 there have onlybeen two State Project Directors (SPDs) and,where possible, State Project and DistrictProject officials have been kept in post for areasonable length of time; the newly createdstate of Uttaranchal is benefiting from thedirectorship of a long-time DPEP officer.Increasingly women’s organisations and theLabour, Women and Child and UrbanDevelopment Departments support the workof DPEP. Convergence of services forIntegrated Education of the Disabled (IED) isalso evident in UP. However over-optimismabout the capacity of the state to supportinitiatives, such as the work of the EarlyChildhood Care and Education (ECCE), couldhave detrimental effects if the support is halted.7

The fact that ECCE has not been included inthe recent 93rd Amendment, education as a rightbeing given only from 6–14, underlines theproblem of getting administrators to see theimportance of pre-school education and, inparticular, the way in which it can support eldersiblings to continue their schooling. Northerncountries have learned late, and painfully, thataccess to pre-school education is essential forchildren in socially deprived groups if they areto benefit from their formal education.

7 13th JRM State Report, DPEP.

33

The Primary School Teacher

The success of any education project ultimatelydepends on the teacher. This is particularly trueof the primary education project. The child inthe classroom is the last in the line of a cascadeof reforms and inputs that reach her or him onlythrough the agency of the teacher. Most teachersare only receivers; training, teaching materials,pedagogy, all come to them after a long journeyfrom the source. It is true that a few teachersare included in primary training programmes orbecome involved in materials development; butthen their enhanced skills become so valuablethat they are usually caught up in training ormanagement posts. Many teachers struggle withpoor training that does not link new pedagogyor ideas with their own skills or experience; theyare expected to change their ideas about howor what to teach when often they have only theirown educational experience and classroompractice to fall back on. Many teachers alsostruggle to practise new training in conditionsthat are not amenable to change: large classes,disinterested or hostile leadership within theschool, insufficient materials and no supportfrom more knowledgeable colleagues. Addedto this are the physical conditions of poorclassrooms — or no classroom at all — teachershortages causing large classes and multi-levelsof required teaching, and many places wheresalaries are poor and the demands of otherduties, such as those relating to census work orelections, erode teaching time. Project leadersand funding agencies make their final demandsfor accountability on the teacher and thought isincreasingly being given to finding a thresholdfrom which innovations and reforms can takeplace and below which not a lot can beexpected of the teacher.

There are basic minimum conditions that requireto be fulfilled before new methodologies canbe practised. Even enthusiastic young teachers

are daunted by the lack of support from head-teachers and the hostility of parents. They arenot fluent with the ideas they are practising andoften find it difficult to justify what they are doingin convincing ways. The most commonly heardresponse when visiting classrooms to follow upteacher training is, ‘It just isn’t possible to doit here.’ This is often from teachers who haveenjoyed training, shown new talents and arekeen to implement what they have learned.Visiting such a school in Pakistan where childrenwere sitting bored in rows while a teacher‘minded’ three classes at a time, the newsupplementary readers, designed to supportsuch situations, were found never to have beenunpacked. The teacher had been keen in trainingbut unable to combat the failure of the head-teacher to give the necessary books to him.Other classes suffer from wind and rain; in some,white ants eat the charts and TLM; at last theteacher gives up and goes back to the easieroption of rote learning.

The minimum necessary conditions need to beput in place so that teachers can get some kindof grip on the changes they are told to make intheir classrooms. New curriculum initiativestake time and support to become integrated intothe teachers’ practice. The experience ofNorthern countries shows how resistant teacherscan be and how much practice and support theyrequire in order to move positively into a changesituation. The chart in Figure 1 makes an attemptat determining some of the conditions that areprobably necessary before innovation andchange can take place. Under DPEP, many ofthese conditions are starting to be met. Thecurrent focus of DPEP on quality is an indicationthat some of the basic needs are also beginningto be fulfilled. A gradual decentralisation processis taking place and as communities and teachersbecome more involved as primary users anddecision-makers, the dynamics of change arebeginning to occur. As a result, a glimmering of

34

the desired ends of busy, interactive and happyprimary classrooms can be seen in thedeveloping areas of DPEP.

Against this, the pressure on class sizes has notyet stabilised as increased enrolment and re-enrolment bites into the available space andrecruited teachers. Schools outgrow their newbuildings and reconstructed classrooms as moreand more children enrol and then stay onbeyond Class I. Additional benefits, like ECCEgroups operating in schools to enable oldersiblings to continue education, take up valuablespace; their sisters released from their care swellthe sizes of the upper grade classes.

In many states, including UP, the para-teacherhas been recruited to help the regular teacherand to bring down class sizes. Locally appointedand accountable to the Village EducationCommittee (VEC), they are less likely to moveon than the regular teacher. The problem of classsize is very district-specific and particularlyimpacts on remote areas. Single teachers, evenif assisted by para-teachers, can feel isolatedand vulnerable in these areas. More importantly,they are unable to educate their own children ingood schools. A study done for the AndhraPradesh Primary Education Project (APPEP)8

showed that even the provision of good qualityhousing could not entice teachers to theseremote areas, the issue of their own children’seducation being the overriding factor. New andinnovative ways of dealing with recruitment inremote areas, particularly of women teachers,need to be found. Some initiatives in the NGO

sector show possible ways of dealing with this.9

The question remains of quality and training forpara-teachers and the social issue ofdifferentiated pay for what is often nearly thesame amount of work and responsibility. Manystates are currently considering their positionregarding para-teachers and AS instructors. Thedevelopment of Distance Learning resources inthe states may indicate some possible ways ofdeveloping in-school training programmes forunder-qualified teachers. Equally, thedevelopment of high quality schooling in remoteareas might make teachers less anxious abouttheir own children’s primary education.

Another consideration is the issue of time.Projects and programmes are of necessity time-bound and require change to happen in aquantifiable way within the project term. In fact,many changes take place slowly and almostimperceptibly. Kress10 refers to the need toembed change in the known context of theteacher’s experience and understanding. Hesuggests the metaphor of a frame that has alimited but stable view of the scene. Wideningthe frame too rapidly results in loss of focusand disintegration. Slow widening of the framemeans that the teacher’s view is enlarged and awider landscape comes into the frame, but thelandmarks remain to give confidence andsecurity. But time is a luxury denied to projectorganisers and managers who are constantlyrequired to produce results. It is interesting tohave been involved in Andhra Pradesh (AP)over a period of 12 years, first in APPEP andlater in DPEP. In the early days, Andhra wasconsidered something of a rural joke in termsof the possibility of effecting positive change intheir education system. Certainly poverty, poorinfrastructure and limited views of primaryeducation caused difficulties. Now, however,mission reports refer to the good example of

8 Bonner, R. et al. 1994. Report on Civil WorksAPPEP.

9 Aga Khan Foundation Northern Areas SmallSchools initiative and BRAC locally based, trainedand supervised teachers show some suchinnovations using mobile teachers, providingtransport and supervision. 10 Kress, G. 1995. UKRA Conference Proceedings.

35

AP; the fourteenth Joint Review Mission(JRM) found it was Andhra that producedthe significant innovation of a simple formatfor classroom assessment based on literacy

skills and rated 1-3 by teachers for individualchildren. Neat, economical and grounded ingood educational theory, it serves the purposewell.

Figure 1Prevailing Conditions, Outcomes and Classroom Implications

The Search for a Threshold

Prevailing conditions

Very large PTRNo external supportHostile communityTeaching more than one classCrumbling classrooms or unshelteredteaching space

Top-down directionInadequate and infrequent teachertraining‘Harsh’ supervisionLittle space for activities

Teacher training inputs not based onclassroom realitiesInsufficient teaching space

Assessment procedures in place butno help given with weak areas –content, management andmethodology

One teacher to a classEnough classroomsMulti-grade strategies and materialsin place for small schools

Outcomes

Large classesNon-coverage of curriculumFrequent teacher absenteeismHigh dropout rateLow enrolment

Meaningless statisticsHigher enrolment but lowcompletionHigh repetition ratesTeachers ‘performing’ activities

Authoritarian inspection with noindividual feedbackTop-down teacher training notbased on needTextbooks not supporting children’slearningNo focus on multi-grade or multi-level strategies

Supervision but no focused follow-upLearning achievement tests

Reasonable resourcesUse of trained para-teachersChildren complete curriculumFewer dropoutsLess repetition

Classroom implications

Survival strategiesInactive classroomNo community supportChildren frequently unsupervisedLow attendanceMany children dropping outFew or no textbooks

Mostly rote learningUse of old textbooks sometimesNo sharing of problems withsupervisors or other teachersShort cutsDrop-out of poor studentsAbsent children

‘Active’ classrooms only whenvisitedAssessment with no feedback orremedial attentionMechanical teaching withoutinterest or relevanceNo attention to individual needs ormulti-grade situationPoorer children frequently repeat ayear

Teachers teach to the testTeachers devise tests based solelyon textbook contentFrequent repetitionTeacher knowledge is incomplete

Teacher able to implementtraining in classroomTeacher plans lessonsTeacher can devise simple testsTeacher uses some activepedagogy

A FEASIBLE BASELINE?

36

Textbook and Teacher GuideTeacher training related to class-room procedures and materials

Head-teacher trainingCommunity trainingReasonable PTRs

Academic support at all levels ofthe system

Teachers and community fullyinvolved in decision makingAssessment procedures transpar-ent and functional

In-school leadership and supportfor trainingSupervision in-schoolAccountability to the communityCommunity supportClass size not more than 40/1Multi-grade with less than 30childrenImprovement in completion rate ofchildrenLess or no repetition

State and district level ASGsBRCs, CRCs and DIETs supportteachers links with whole statesupportFollow-up and adjustment ofteacher trainingResearch activities

Relevant learning achievementtestsImproved examination resultsCompletion up to Class VIIIachieved by most childrenOngoing review and developmentof teacher training and TLMincluding textbooksOwnership of basic education bythe whole country

Group work used to supportindividual learningTeacher records assessmentGirl’s enrol and stay in schoollonger

Teachers innovate and practicenew ideasTeachers discuss plansSchool improvement plans madewith community helpOut of school children seen to bewhole school responsibilityNeeds of girls, disabled andminority communities are takencare ofChildren are happyChildren learn to their potentialHomework is givenParents go to school withproblems

Focused, regular and relevantteacher trainingFrequent follow-up and supportSchool assessmentAssessment of individualchildrenTeachers developing own TLMTeachers involved in ActionResearchDIET mentoring BRC, CRC andschools

Accountable schoolsAchieving childrenCoherent School-based assess-ment by teachersNew TLM and textbook updatesFrequent locally specific teachertraining that is effectiveInvolved communitiesGirls and minority communitiesfully schooled

It has taken time for the scattering ofenthusiastic teachers and educators, creativeindividuals and positive institutions to spreadideas and to support change, which ishappening now. The success achieved by APshould serve as a positive signal to states thatentered DPEP at a later date. Another, perhaps

equally significant, point is that states that areachieving well in spite of infrastructure andeconomic difficulties such as AP, MP and UPhave also had the benefit, in UP’s caseconsistently, of very strong leadership and ofthe ability to embed DPEP reforms in agovernmental system and thereby achieve a

37

degree of convergence and slow but suregrowth that will be sustainable in the future.

One of the problems is that LogicalFrameworks for projects often setcontradictory or difficult to achieve targetsand sometimes quality is lost in the pursuitof these targets within the given time limit.DPEP targets quantified increases inenrolment and retention and also improvementsin learning achievement as key indicatorsof the programme’s success. At the time,this no doubt seemed to be what peoplewould want to see as outcomes from asuccessful programme input. The two targetsare, however, if they are to be honestlypursued, counter-productive. Increases inenrolment necessarily mean that morefirst-time learners, more marginalisedgroups and more socially disadvantagedlearners will enter the school. Classes willbe larger, the differential between learners’ability greater, and the teacher will beunder more pressure. These conditionswill tend to depress the learning achievementof the whole class when it is taken as anaverage. The only serious quantifiablemeasure of improvement in learning wouldbe to set assessment procedures to measurean individual’s progress against theirown baseline. In England, attempts to measureschool effectiveness have included measuringlearning achievement as a whole. However,disaggregated results show that schoolsscoring highly at the baseline do notnecessarily have as successful results asthose scoring poorly at the baseline butwhose pupils make a greater progress from thebaseline.11 Aggregated scores and school-to-school comparisons often mask the real story.

Materials Development and TeacherTraining.

The reform of textbooks and curriculum hasbeen a central tenet of DPEP activities. Theproper reform of materials is a time-consumingprocess that has to allow for mistakes, revisionsand proper classroom trialling if it is to beeffective. The textbook is the central teachingaid of most Southern classrooms; attempts towiden the scope of textbook use in primaryclassrooms by introducing multiple textbookprogrammes (e.g. Kenya and Sri Lanka) oftenfounder on the limited ability of the teacher andhead-teacher to choose effectively from a rangeof books and, in Kenya’s case, abuse of thesystem by publishers anxious to ensure widedistribution of their books. In Sri Lanka, gettinga range of good textbooks available has meanta great deal of work in terms of assessingcontent, bias and developing textbook writers.12

In other countries, including India, textbookwriting in the past has been a discrete activity,undertaken by a few people from universitiesor SCERT, many of whom have limitedknowledge of the reality of the primaryclassroom but are reluctant to widen theconstituency of writers. Textbook reform hasincluded the need to build teams of people withthe capacity and understanding of the primarycurriculum to be able to write appropriatelearning materials.

Textbooks are also frequently political dynamite.As recent extensive press coverage of thehistory textbook furore in India has shown,13

content can be contentious. The shift ofemphasis in the World Bank and DFIDsupported projects in Sri Lanka has tended to

1 1 Grey, J.B. Smith and I. Urquhart. 1996. Study ofReading Progress in Suffolk Schools. HomertonCollege, Cambridge.

12 Hunt, T. 2000. Report on Textbook Development.MOEHE and World Bank.13 See, for example, extensive press coverage in allnewspapers during the week of 25th November 2001.

38

be towards the importance of learningmaterials, particularly textbooks andsupplementary reading materials, in supportingequity and in contributing towards stabilityand harmony in areas of conflict.14

Textbook production is lucrative andopening it up to others causes conflicts thatreach ministerial level. Integrating moderntheories of child development and linguisticeffectiveness can cause traditional responsesthat are negative. Attempts in AP to changethe order of teaching the alphabet toencourage the development of fine motor skillsin children by grouping letters according tothe way they are written resulted in theaccusation that ‘the project is trying to abolishthe Telugu alphabet’. Again, trialling textbooksin a well-chosen sample of schools is expensiveand time consuming; it remains, however, animportant way of ensuring relevance andeffective learning.15

Maybe a summary of some of the lessonslearned in the production of textbooks andsupplementary materials will indicate both theprogress made under DPEP and also the timethat is required to get it right.

� Textbooks require to be structured tosupport the child’s cognitive and physicaldevelopment.

� Teachers need to be involved in textbookwriting because they know and understandthe classroom conditions.

� Innovative teachers have alreadydeveloped new ways of learning andteaching some of the curriculum.

� Content needs to be geared to the age level

of the child, to be concrete rather thanabstract in procedure and to includecontinuity and progression.

� What children learn is mostly throughinteraction. Textbooks need to provoketalk, activities or interactive engagementwith the text. The content should beconnected to activities that take childrenbeyond the necessarily limited text itself.

� Children love narrative and humour – bothof which top the surveys of children’sreading responses.16 They can be used inan effective and stimulating way to makethe textbook interesting and engaging forthe learner.

� Didactic and moral teaching is best donethrough an indirect medium, such as astory, cartoon or inference in the text.

� Bias in terms of gender, caste, culture orreligion is often unconsciously embeddedin written materials. Writers need trainingand guidance in this area.

� Illustrations should not be ‘pretty frills’ thatmake textbooks attractive. Interesting,interactive and learning opportunities areclearly present in Eklavya’s17 textbooksand materials, which are only illustrated byline drawings.

� Text, even in early readers and languagetextbooks, should be cohesive andextensive rather than single words orphrases isolated from each other.

� The language of textbooks andsupplementary materials should be close tothe oral vocabulary of the child, particularlyin the early years. Some flexibility is neededfor local input where there are dialect or

14 2000. Towards Social Harmony in Education: SriLanka. DFID and World Bank.

1 5 Rao, K.N. and B. Smith, 1997. Assessment of ClassI Textbook for APPEP. International Journal ofEarly Learning.

16 1995/7. Books in Schools; Pilot Interim and FinalReport: World Bank BOBLEP Project Sri Lanka.

17 Eklavya, an NGO in Madhya Pradesh produces awide range of cheap supplementary materials,textbooks and newsletters.

39

language differences in different areas of astate.18

� Teachers need to be supported by a teachertextbook. This should contain the children’stextbook plus comments, further learningin terms of knowledge content, activitiesand assessment procedures.

� Teachers need training to use new textbooksand supplementary materials. Trainingmaterials and handouts can go a long wayin supporting effective use of new materialsin the classroom.19

In UP they have just completed the teacherguides, and the third phase of teacher training,Saadhan, was based around the use of these inthe classroom. Almost all teachers we spoketo on field visits referred to how helpful traininghad been. We also saw a number of activitiesand assessment procedures that had beensuggested in the teacher guides being used inthe classroom.

Supplementary readers, where they can beproduced under project expenditure, are aneffective way of consolidating reading skills andgiving children access to the wider world ofknowledge and experience. In Sri Lanka, theongoing Mother Tongue Supplementary ReaderProject (World Bank and DFID) has a widerremit to attempt to contribute to efforts towardssocial harmony and conflict resolution. The Pre-Service Teacher Training materials (GTZ) also

have this as an overriding aim.20

NGOs have been less constrained by politicalconsiderations in their development of teaching-learning materials. They have often led the waywith child-centred and innovative materials thatare more suitable for primary age children. Theskills of NGOs are being increasingly used tohelp in state textbook reforms, e.g., Eklayva inMP, Rishi Valley Educational Foundation(RVEF) in AP and Digantar from Rajasthan inseveral states including UP and the MVFoundation in AP. This is a positive moveforward and allows ideas and processesdeveloped in less pressured conditions to beincorporated into government materials.

It is often in NGOs that the space and skills todevelop specialist materials is found. RVEF hasdeveloped self-learning multi-grade materialsand training for use in small, remote tribalschools but their ideas are now in currencyamongst much wider communities. InBangladesh, the Concentrated LearningImprovement Programme (CLIP) concentrateson the development of deep-level learning skills.It has now been adapted and is in use asVIKALP – a learning improvement programmein Uttar Pradesh in Hardoi and Barabankidistricts. The gradual generalisation and spreadof such innovative programmes will contributetowards the development of teachers’ skills andensuring quality in the primary classroom.

The teacher remains key to the futuredevelopment of educational quality and theprogramme requires the continuation of focused,frequent and well-evaluated inputs as close tothe teacher as possible. The local DistrictInstitutes of Education and Training (DIETs) areincreasingly taking on responsibility for the task

18 For example in Telegana and coastal areas of AP.Interesting experiments in using Telugu script fortranscribing local tribal languages have also beenundertaken in AP. See the work of Early LearningInstitute in Hyderabad.

19 PMSP (Punjab, Pakistan, produced a cheap seriesof teacher handbooks to supplement the readerproject. These were written like a magazine,illustrated by a cartoonist and contained theoryin an applied context.

40

20 Smith, B. 2001. Reports on PELP Mother TongueSupplementary Reader Project;

1999-2000 Reports for GTZ on Pre-service TeacherTraining Materials.

of developing training materials in UP. There isprovision for secondment of good teachers(four) to the DIET staff to bring in neededclassroom expertise and extra staff for theadded responsibilities of assessment,academic supervision, materials developmentand teacher training. In UP, and it seemsalso elsewhere, DIETs remain depressinglyunderstaffed. Some training has beengiven but the impact of poor staffing combinedwith pre-service responsibilities and school,cluster and block supervision work andtraining put added pressure on DIET staff.The need to upgrade the status of workingin the DIET has been a recurring problemthroughout DPEP and earlier projects. Thehigh status of teacher training in northerncountries makes it hard to comprehend thereluctance of people to serve in DIETs. It wouldbe good to see states take innovative steps totry and revive these institutions and turn theminto the decentralised ‘think tanks’ for primaryeducation in local communities. The recentlypublished studies of work done by DIET insome states are perhaps a first step in thisprocess.21

Girls’ Education

‘I have learned to look up and speak.’Tabassum.

Making a Difference: Girls’ Education in UttarPradesh. DPEP 2000

The high priority given to encouraging girls’education is prevalent throughout South Asia.In Northern countries also there has been anemphasis on improving the contribution of girlsand on raising girls’ achievement levels. InEngland, girls now outdo boys in most areas inexaminations. The social context for girls’education, however, still remains problematical.Earlier studies showed that girls were expected

by teachers to be cooperative, helpful andtidy22 and conditioned responses, particularlyamongst working class girls, showed lowaspirations for their future.23 Extensive studieshave shown that girls often retreat in socialclassroom situations and usually ‘show theircleverness’24 through written work rather thanexposing themselves to the possibility of failurein a public arena. The attempt to universaliseeducation for girls in India has to be seen againstworldwide difficulties faced by girls, particularlythose from poorer communities, in achievingequal educational status with boys.

The correlation between improved women’sliteracy and lower birth rates is well known andthe spread of women’s literacy both throughbasic education and adult literacy campaignsbrings gradual improvements in health andincome generation to the poorest sector ofAsian society. There is increasing need forwomen to be literate and able to earn moneyas the pace of the modern world begins to erodethe values and mores of traditional societies. InBangladesh, one of the critical areas for focuson poverty reduction has become women headof households.25 Often deserted by men whohave migrated to the city in order to getemployment, these women constitute thepoorest and most marginalised community.Literacy and continuing education leading toincome opportunities is a dire necessity forfamilies on the edge of survival.

The extensive documentation about girls’education that is produced in UP shows a keen

22 For example studies of Infant School interactionsin the 1980s by Beth Goodacre; numerous feministstudies have shown girls in inferior status inschooling situations.23 The Tidy House.24 Walkerdine,V: Girls and Schooling.25 AUCC & Pathmark Associates. 2001. SectorReview of Non-Formal Education in Bangladesh.Asian Development Bank: Bangladesh.

41

21 2001. Studies of Work in DIETs in Four States.DPEP Bureau.

awareness of this background. One of the itemsin the school survey requires the observer tonote teacher-to-child interactions and to seewhether the girls receive the same attention asboys. Interestingly, the results showed noperceptible difference. This is certainly incontrast to previous classroom visits. However,boys are still more frequently asked to beclassroom monitors than girls, and girls almostentirely take on cleaning responsibilities in theschool. Not only are there still differences inattitude but also role models for girls remain ina minority. In spite of efforts to recruit womenteachers, it is still difficult to get women to workin rural and remote areas. The proposed targetof 51 per cent women SMs has not beenpossible to achieve as yet, which means thatmany small AS schools have no woman teacher.The single-teacher primary school we visited inMeerut had a male teacher and a male SM.However, since the UP documents do notdisaggregate teachers by gender, it is difficultto quantify this.

There is also a parallel with the finding aboutthe almost exclusive use of boys as monitors.On a visit to a DIET in Meerut we observed atraining session for teachers on gendersensitisation. They were generally veryenthusiastic and many claimed to have learneda lot and intended to change their practice onreturn to school. A question regarding thegender of head-teachers, though, brought anamused response. Only two teachers workedin a school with a female head-teacher. Thewomen teachers’ response to the question‘How many of you would like to be a head-teacher?’ was an initially slow, with very fewraising their hands. Gradually more and morejoined in until all but two declared themselvesas having ambitions in this area. This raises thequestion of whether more women would beprepared to go and teach in rural areas if theywere given a position of responsibility – a

question with many implications for communityorientation and training for head-teachers.

UP has a particularly strong focus on women’sempowerment and girls’ education, both withingovernment and in DPEP. Priority is given tocommunication at community level aimed atchanging attitudes, enrolling more girls andensuring that they complete basic education.There are numerous agencies working in thisarea and there appears to be good collaborationbetween them. Mahila Samakhya works atpolicy level to change attitudes and to keep theissue of women on the state agenda. Thechanging of traditional attitudes, prevention ofearly marriage and spread of girls’ educationare seen as key activities. Most of theseagencies work at field level, often in particularareas, and the enthusiastic women’s groups areimpressive to see in action. There are a varietyof awareness raising activities through themedia, Meena campaigns and creation of localwomen’s groups such as Maa Beti Melas andWomen’s Parliaments. Significant steps forwardare being taken in Meerut district, particularlyby VECs who seem to have acceptedresponsibility for out-of-school children,particularly girls. In the words of one VECmember, ‘We are deeply involved andcommitted to getting them into school.’ Onevillage of 3,000 now claims to be a fully literatevillage, mostly due to the efforts of the Women’sMotivator Group who have taken on theresponsibility of bringing children into schooland ensuring that they stay. In this village,schoolteachers visit the homes when childrenare absent. The women’s groups are particularlystrong in this area and have taken on board theissue of girls’ education; in discussions it wasclear that they valued the opportunity to meetand discuss issues and that they had their ownaspirations and hopes for the future.

In UPDPEP-II, the micro-planning data has

42

been analysed to show nine categories ofreasons for not going to school, with domesticwork (47.81 per cent) and sibling care (8.29per cent) being the largest categories. Thesetwo categories obviously affect girls most.ECCE centres are being supported by DPEPand those we saw in schools were full of smallchildren who were being taught songs, had toysto play with and listened to stories. The strongmotivation of the women’s groups in Meerut,and the obvious good relationship that they havewith capable trainers, might make it possible toextend some of their activities further than justsupporting education for girls. One womenreferred to her own wish for literacy so that shecould read her children’s school books withthem; another wanted literacy so that she couldget employment of some kind. The issue ofdomestic work, laborious and time consumingfor many women and girls, might be tackled interms of better management of resources andtime; health and hygiene issues would enablechildren to go to school healthier and to remainin school without extended absences. Thedevelopment of these women’s groups will beinteresting to watch in terms of their greatpotential for effecting change.

UP has also concentrated efforts for improvinggirls’ education in terms of quality, attitudes andcompletion in particular areas of poverty andlow enrolment. The Model Development ClusterApproach (MDCA) takes up to 100 schoolsand concentrates inputs and efforts to raise girls’enrolment and to change the community andteacher attitudes so that girls are retained inschool. The involvement of the VEC,community, parents and teachers has creatednumbers of villages with full enrolment. Thethirteenth JRM mission drew attention to thedropout rate among girls over nine years of ageas a particular issue and there has been a verypositive and effective response to this. Bridgecourses, particularly for working children, bring

children back up to the required standard toenable them to re-enrol without failing. Summercamps have been widespread and verysuccessful. These residential camps are mainlyfor girls and not only give concentrated remedialinput for literacy and maths but also includeyoga, creative activities and cooperative gamesin order to help girls gain confidence and self-respect.

One primary school visited in Mithepur hasachieved remarkable progress in the months ofDPEP-III, which have coincided with theappointment of a new headteacher. The childrenperformed a play exhorting parents to send theirgirls to school that has been used in themobilisation of the village. Children were wellorganised and committed. A group of nine girlshad been mainstreamed after the summer campfor dropout and non-enrolled children. Theywere confident and articulate although, as oneof them pointed out, the domestic workexpected of them had not changed. ‘Now I haveto do school work and work in the house,’she stated rather ruefully. The womenrepresentatives on the VEC claimed to haveno difficulty or diffidence about speaking andin getting people to hear their views. One hadvolunteered an idea to introduce sewing andother viable crafts suitable for girls into thecurriculum as she felt that this would help tokeep them in school. However, she added that,‘No one paid much attention to the idea!’This is a village with full enrolment and a vibrantand interested VEC determined to maintain thegirls in school until the end of basic education.

The gain in self-respect and confidence achievedby women and girls can be a powerful agentfor change. In Bangladesh, Bangladesh RuralAdvancement Committee (BRAC) is usingadolescent girls to lead group meetings (calledadolescent library groups), where issuesregarding marriage, divorce, AIDS and birth

43

control are freely discussed.26 In UP, they areusing a similar model to follow up basic non-formal education for adolescents. This providesspace for girls to meet, to continue reading andplay games and to maintain contact with theirteacher. In traditional communities adolescentgirls can be very isolated, constrained by socialnorms to stay in their homes at a time whenthey most need to be able to talk to their peers.These libraries have proved very valuable andprobably help girls to resist the pressure for earlymarriage to some extent.

In spite of many efforts to provide for girls toenter education, difficulties remain.Communities are increasingly finding their ownsolutions and this is a very positive sign. Theissue of girls’ safety has high priority in traditionalsocieties where marriage is seen as the ultimateaim for girls. Remote or urban situations wheregirls must negotiate lonely roads or pass throughareas of high risk constrain parents from sendingthem to school. Physical difficulties such asrivers, mountains or flood-prone areas alsocreate problems. In many communities they areseeking to solve the problem in a local way.Some communities now send girls to school ina group with trusted escorts; others havecontributed to building a new school nearer totheir habitations; and yet others have appliedpressure on government officials forimprovement of infrastructure. The pressure ofdomestic work and sibling care requirescommunity support and pressure, and possiblythe support of mothers to enable them tomanage without their daughter’s assistance forpart of the day. ECCE centres in schoolssupport older girls burdened with the care ofyounger siblings.

Gender issues do not end with the education of

girls and the empowerment of women. In orderto ensure progress in equity it is also necessaryto effect attitudinal change in boys and men.Efforts to give gender training to secondaryschoolboys in Bangladesh by an NGO haverevealed areas of ignorance and fear; boys alsoneed to understand the issues of women’sempowerment. Men and boys too need todevelop different ways of negotiating, ofexpressing feelings and of sharing heavy familyresponsibilities with their wives and daughters.An interesting finding from a field study inBangladesh27 was the fact that women cited‘shared decision-making’ as one of the benefitsfollowing continuing education and their abilityto contribute to the family income. Domesticwork in the home is often not valued as work(in the North as well as the South) and women’svoices are hard to hear; income generation giveswomen a voice and creates shared family valuesand aspirations. In this sense, it is important.Hostility towards gender issues often centreson the divisive and socially disturbing outcomesfrom some empowerment activities. There isthus a need for constant discussion, negotiationand honest appraisal of what is happening. Thecollective power of women who have beentrained to listen, assess and negotiate situationscan support great changes. Residential facilitiesfor women’s training, such as Mahila ShikshanKendras in UP and the BRAC and Prashikaresidential centres in Bangladesh, give womenthe opportunity to learn skills and to understandthe life skills necessary for the improvement ofhealth and social situations.

In India and other Asian countries, educationof girls is not a simple matter of achieving UEE.Girls’ education relates strongly to issues ofpoverty reduction, lowering of the population

272001. Loan Proposal for Second Non-FormalEducation Report. Asian Development Bank:Manila.

26 2000. Action Research Study of APON. BRAC:Dhaka, Bangladesh.

44

growth rate and the improved economiccondition of the country. It is good to see theincreased importance that this issue is acquiring.

Alternative Schooling

‘I tell them – if they don’t send theirchildren to school then they can’t have

a job.’Brickworks Owner: Kirali Bhatta

The size of India with its large rural areas, jungle,mountains, river plains and scatteredpopulations has always made the provision ofcentralised education problematical. Manyminority groups live in small habitations un-served by any infrastructure. Bringing educationto children in these places is not easy. Equally,overcrowded urban areas of cities serve tomarginalise certain groups. And it is in the citiesthat the most number of working children is foundand where Muslim minorities largely live.Migrant communities, too, tend to constellatetowards cities or other areas where seasonalwork is available, often following centuries-oldpatterns of movement. Initial efforts to educatetribal communities resulted in boarding schoolswhere children spent most of their time awayfrom home, losing touch with their families,culture and language, and causing hardship bytheir absence from home when needed to helpwith harvest or other activities. Thedevelopment of small, locally specific schoolsis a great improvement on the centralised effortto provide education. It brings to mind thewords of Gandhi that in a country the size ofIndia, no central government can hope to deliverthe needed education to so many diversecommunities. The strength of the AS school isin its local relevance – with the teacher a localperson usually able to speak the language ordialect of the children and the communityinvolved in providing the teacher and insupporting the school by providing land or

space for it to operate in. In many ways ASschooling seems to present an ideal solution toan intractable demographic problem.

There are issues connected with AS schooling,however, that continue to be raised. Is ASschooling creating a second-class education forpoorer and marginalised communities? Thequestion has certainly been asked for aconsiderable time and polemical statementsmade about the dangers of creating this dualstandard for education. States have dealt withthe problem in different ways but the UP solutionis firmly embedded in their policy that all childrenshould eventually be educated in formal primaryschools. The AS school serves as a transitionpoint between non-schooling and formalschooling. It allows dispossessed and un-enrolled children to learn the basics of literacyand then to progress to the local primary school.The formal school textbooks and materials areused in AS schools and the target is integration.There remain un-served areas where ASschools will no doubt continue to exist and somekinds of communities who may well be bestserved by alternative education. Migrantcommunities always face the problem of‘learning lag’ as they leave their school andmove on. This problem has been solved to someextent in England for traveller (gypsy) childrenwho are migrant by creating a learning recordthat children carry with them from place to place.Such individualised learning progress andattainment records may not yet be feasible butas AS teachers become better trained, they area possibility.

A second question relates to the teacher.Chosen from the community and trained, theycan be isolated from other teachers and requiretraining and support, particularly training basedon difficulties experienced in their classroom.BRAC supervisors visit their para-teachersweekly and identify problems. The monthlyblock-level training programme is then based

45

on the identified difficulties. Another worryingconcern identified by the fourteenth JRM is thefact that in the majority of single-teacher ASschools, the teachers are male; as traditionalattitudes often exist in remote areas, this seemsto militate strongly against girls’ regularattendance at school. Again questions arefrequently raised, both in India and other Asiancountries, about the status, pay and training ofinstructors. It is an obvious solution forimpoverished governments but in the long term,it can allow governments to abrogate theirresponsibility to fund education properly so thatfully trained teachers are available for all schools.Also, and again in the long term, what happensto the brilliantly performing AS teachers? Canthey become formal teachers and in what waycan they contribute to educational progress?These issues are likely to acquire moreprominence as formal primary education getsbetter established and marginalised communitiesstart to demand equal rights.

One of the eight versions of AS schooling inUP is an adaptation of the RVEF model. Hereteachers and children are trained to recordprogress in order to facilitate multi-gradeclassroom learning. These materials have beendeveloped over a long period of time, trialledand reviewed in remote tribal settlements in AP,their tribal teachers trained and supported withrelevant and interesting supervision andadditional training. A group of teachers fromAP undertook action research activities in theirschools recently, showing that AS instructorscan be developed through training to a high level.For remote communities such schools,specifically designed for multi-grade teaching,are likely to be the most effective in theforeseeable future.

A particular focus for AS inputs and additionaleducational opportunities is amongst the girlsof the Muslim community. These children are

largely educated in local maktabs or madrasaswhere the curriculum is very limited, religioustexts are the main materials and education isvery didactic and non-active. UPDPEP issupporting an extra three hours of schooling inthe maktabs and madrasas in order tointroduce the formal materials and curriculum.They also involve the teacher in local teachertraining. Ongoing efforts to encourage thecommunity to send girls to school continue.The particular needs of migrant communitiesneed to be considered in terms of curriculumcontent and widening of the use of materialsand maybe introduction of some life skillsteaching. In Dulhera (Meerut District), a visitwas made to an unsheltered school in a bastiof tribal people who were metal makers andonce used to supply the kings with theirweapons. The children were learning alphabetsin Hindi and English. Although Hindi-speaking,they also had their own language that wasspoken by the teacher. The teacher was a younggraduate, living in the basti and committed toteaching. There was no problem with thecommunity. This community was vocal and thechildren volatile and eager. However theyappeared extremely dirty and several lookedill. There was no water supply in the basti, andtheir habitation comprised a small wall of brickswith a thatch cover, under which the tribals kepttheir extraordinary decorated carts. There existshere a great opportunity for curriculumexpansion and relevance, particularly forliteracy. The carts were referred to as ‘theirwhole world – they sleep in them, storeeverything in them and travel in them’.Some children could sing songs in their ownlanguage. Collecting historical stories, storiesabout their present-day life and oral songs andstories would not only preserve a unique culturebut also give relevant and powerful readingcontent to the children. This initiative wasdiscussed with the teacher who has agreed totry and do this. These children are intended for

46

mainstream school in a few months, and theteacher will accompany them for a time.They need not only to be helped to achievelevels of health and hygiene that will makethem acceptable in primary school but alsoto be able to retain a pride in their culture.Entering primary school with high literacycapability would also help in this transition. Thiskind of curriculum development would be anexcellent focus for small developmentsupported by an action research evaluationactivity.

In Kirali Bhatta (Meerut), a small, unshelteredEducation Guarantee Scheme (EGS) schoolhad been set up in the grounds of a brickworks.Most of the workers returned each year tothe same brickworks and the owner wasactively supporting the school and teacher.Some of the older children were going to thejunior high school nearby and some weremainstreamed into the local primary school.Again, the learning opportunities present inthe environment were great. Mathematics,science and language activities could use thechildren’s experience, their knowledge oftwo living places — West Bengal and UP —and their understanding of the processes ofbrick-making, building, etc. In this classroomthere was no evidence of creative work usingthe ubiquitous clay on which the brickworkswas dependent – a free and useful material forsmall children to use.

Working children in UP have been defined as ahard to reach group. In house-to-house surveysand liaison with employers, there have been greatefforts to identify such children and to encouragethem back into schooling. Bridge coursessupport this. However, it is unrealistic in mostcases to think that all poor families will be ableto bear the opportunity cost of formal schoolingfor one of the wage earners in their family. ASschools with flexible timings and, again, maybe

a relevant curriculum that develops craftskills, awareness of health and safety issuesand better education to widen employmentopportunities, can all contribute towardsan improvement in working children’scondition. This is an emotive issue. TheUnited Nations Children’s EducationFund (UNICEF) Report on workingchildren in Bangladesh is a harrowingdocument; however, equally harrowingis the account of many girls and boys drivento crime or prostitution as a result of theUSA intervention in labour laws and thesubsequent loss of jobs in factories for childrenunder 14. It is another area where knowledgeand understanding of the steps necessary topromote change need to be used.

Teachers in AS schools are often inventive andresilient because they are teaching underadverse conditions. AS schools contain childrenof all different ages and abilities, including somechildren not properly socialised for schooling.A positive step would be to encourage the useof environmental resources, both physical andhuman, in order to give quality and depth to thechildren’s learning. Continued support andtraining and improved relevance in the AScurriculum will help to ensure that qualityeducation is made available to children in theseschools. There may come a point where somedistinction would need to be made betweenschools that will be necessary in the foreseeablefuture because of infrastructure and remotenessand those that should, eventually, be broughtinto the formal system. In Bangladesh, theongoing tension between large NGOs, withmore schools between them than thegovernment, and the failure of the governmentto build sufficient schools, train sufficientteachers and ensure quality in their schools,indicates what can happen when the non-formalsector passes the government in quality andprovision.

47

Research and Evaluation Studies

There has been a great improvement in DPEPofficial data regarding the position in states interms of enrolment, retention, dropouts andproject inputs. The current 2001documentation is impressive in scope, designand production.28 It provides coherent and well-organised information, which must be of greathelp to planners. The improved EducationManagement Information System (EMIS) atstate and district level now captures data thatincludes gender disaggregation and other criticalinformation. In districts, there are nowhousehold surveys that emanate from the locallevel, with data on individual children andfamilies; this is used in micro-planning andschool development plans.

A series of studies in English were available tothe fourteenth JRM, including reconstructedcohort studies and some more qualitative studieson Teacher Training and Gender. The quality ofthese studies is variable and some of them failto give objective assessments that would behelpful in planning. There is a disappointing lackof critical analysis and the data collection ispedestrian and unlikely to have given in-depthinformation.

Development in the area of research andevaluation studies might be looked at in twoways. There is a need for overview, criticalstudies that are able to collect a wide variety ofinformation from a wide variety of informationsources and then to categorise and analyse insuch a way that trends and potential points fordevelopment become clear. Such studies requirea wide knowledge of social development issuesand the context of education as well aseducational input. There is such a wealth of

talent in the social development sector in Indiathat it would seem a positive move to have somecollaborative efforts in which mutual skills andunderstanding can be used to create studies thathave ‘thick’ meaning and produce focused andcritical findings. Equally, in the NGOs thereexists capacity for undertaking studies,particularly of gender. Some such studies alreadyexist and are useful to mission members. DPEPhas now passed the stage where it needs to beanxious about adverse findings; maturity of theproject means that these can be viewed in thelight of the project progress as a whole. Findingsthat pinpoint areas of weakness or failure canbe particularly useful in adjusting programmeinputs and direction.

The second area where there could be growthis in bottom-up, participatory studies from thefield. The voice of the teacher, parent and childare mostly missing from current studies, exceptwhere they serve to support a hypothesis oradd a dimension to a quantitative finding.Efforts to include teachers in AP, MP, Delhiand Rajasthan in Action Research Studieshave had some success, although the plannedintegration of these into a national network hasnot yet taken place. Working with teachers,including AS teachers in many countries,convinces that there is a need to enable them toexpress their ideas and feelings. These drivemany teachers and they are capable, with goodsupport, of making a real contribution to thedata relating to change and development. InIndia, the NGOs have wide experience ofparticipatory processes. Flexible timing for ASschools, community perception, the actuality ofthe life of the working child – these are allsusceptible to capture through participatoryprocesses such as calendars, matrix ranking,small studies, logging and focused discussiongroups. It would be interesting and exciting tosee such small initiatives being taken up acrossIndia. The information generated could also be

28 2001. Agarwal, Yash . Progress Towards UniversalAccess and Retention. DPEP.

48

used by academics to produce quality in widerstudies.

DPEP is at a stage where reflective processesshould be in use continuously. Countingcompleters and dropouts gives us important butlimited information; tracker and tracer studies,and small case studies of children, schools andteachers reveal lives, aspirations and problemsand the quality information that projects needin order to develop depth and relevance.

Conclusion

The opportunity to reflect on recent visits andto make comparisons with other projects andexperiences of earlier pre-DPEP projects hasbeen salutary. It has been interesting to realise,during the process of writing, how much theissue of gender and women and girls’ progressin education is a constant underlying theme inAsian countries. In particular, the development

of community strength and, perhaps moreimportantly, community understanding ofeducational issues has been impressive andshows the way forward to other countries wherethis level of community involvement is not sostrong. The development of diverse AS schoolsis now a rich patterning across India and futurestudies of teachers and curriculum in theseschools will provide important information tosupport other countries struggling with diversepopulations and scattered habitation. I lookforward to the flourishing of research studiesand participatory action research that will enableus to hear the voices at the grassroots level.DPEP continues to progress and to grow. Itmakes the inevitable mistakes, it has its criticsand detractors, but nevertheless remains anamazing programme, now stretching acrossalmost the whole of the vast Indian subcontinent- and reaching villages and children who havenever before been invited into the learningcommunity.

49

Glossary of Abbreviations and Indian Terms

ABSA Assistant Basic Shiksha AdhikariAP Andhra PradeshAS Alternative SchoolingBasti SettlementBRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement CommitteeBRC/CRC Block and Cluster Resource CentresBSA Basic Shiksha AdhikariCLIP Concentrated Learning Improvement ProgrammeCMO Child-centred MLL OrientedDIET District Institute of Education and TrainingDPEP District Primary Education ProjectECCE Early Childhood Care and EducationEGS Education Guarantee SchemeEMIS Education Management Information SystemEVS Environmental StudiesGOI Government of IndiaGOUP Government of Uttar PradeshIDA International Development AgencyIED Integrated Education of the DisabledJRM Joint Review MissionMaa Beti Melas Mother-daughter fairsMaktabs andMadrasas Centres of religious instruction for Muslim CommunitiesMDCA Model Development Cluster ApproachMLL Minimum levels of LearningMP Madhya PradeshNPE National Policy on EducationPradhan Village headRVEF Rishi Valley Education FoundationSCERT State Council for Educational Research and TrainingSM Shiksha Mitra (para-teacher)SPO State Project OfficeTLM Teaching-Learning MaterialTPR Teacher-Pupil RatioUNICEF United Nation Children’s Education FundUP Uttar PradeshUPBEP Uttar Pradesh Basic Education ProjectVEC Village Education Committee

50