Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

The urgency of educational reforms

Krishna Kumar

The quality of education is a reflection of the quality of teachers. Major improvements in their training and working conditions will determine how India fares in the pursuit of economic and social development in the years to come.

SIXTEEN YEARS ago, the author of Swami and Friends, the late R.K. Narayan, delivered his maiden speech in the Rajya Sabha on how stressed our children feel at school. The Yash Pal report, Learning without Burden, which followed Narayan's plea for urgent action remained largely unheeded for more than a decade, until the discussions held for drafting the National Curriculum Framework (NCF 2005) brought it back into currency. The main idea conveyed in the Yash Pal report was that our children don't get a chance to enjoy learning at school because the syllabi are irrationally organised, teaching is textbook-centred, and the system of examinations instils fear and encourages cramming. The new syllabi of the National Council of Education Research and Training, prepared on the basis of the NCF, use the psychology of learning and the importance of utilising resources available in children's own milieu as organising principles for teaching different subjects. The Council's re-conceptualised syllabi also attempt to integrate positive values, attitudes, life-skills, aesthetic sensibility, and concern for the environment in each subject, thus reversing the trend towards fragmentation of the curriculum. The new textbooks developed in accordance with these syllabi are interactive and enjoyable and they make a conscious effort to point both children and their teachers towards other sources of learning, such as nature, the neighbourhood, and other books. Even as this gigantic effort unfolds at the level of the NCERT and at least in two other States, namely Bihar and Kerala, two parallel challenges deserve urgent attention.

The first is examination reforms. Rigidity and indifference towards individual differences are among the several weaknesses of the present examination system. That the system ignores creativity and discourages independent thought is also well known. The unrealistically high cut-offs for admission to coveted colleges are a sign of systemic inefficiency. From the quality of questions asked in examinations, to the manner in which evaluation takes place, all aspects of the examination procedure testify to the system's inability to distinguish drilled preparedness (`hard work' in popular parlance) from the capacity to think afresh, to find solutions to problems of one's interest. It is hardly surprising that the very thought of examination makes the young nervous and depressed. The National Focus Group (NFG) on examination reforms, appointed in the context of NCF 2005, analysed the numerous problems associated with centralised public examinations taken at the end of Class X and XII, and gave a set of recommendations. Perhaps the most important among these are the ones concerned with the design of question papers and the quality of the questions asked. The NFG report criticises the practice of splitting unified topics into arbitrary bits carrying small marks-value. Practices like these encourage teachers to concentrate on `scoring' topics, overlooking the importance of perspective and overall understanding. The NFG report also criticises short-answer type questions on the ground that they encourage cramming and result in high scores that don't necessarily signify the capacity to think or to solve unfamiliar problems. The NFG report recommends a judicious mix of well-designed multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and open-ended questions in order to test the student's capacity for reflection on alternatives and expression.

These and other recommendations of the NFG require urgent action on the part of different State Boards, and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) must take the lead. The Council of Boards of School Education (COBSE) has taken a keen interest in NCF-based reforms, but concrete plans have yet to emerge for any implementation of significant examination reforms. Reluctance to include imaginatively designed MCQs and the inclusion of some open-ended questions is explained by referring to logistical factors like storage space and the quality of available evaluators. It is far from clear whether we can hope for better quality question papers in next year's board exams. Even the better boards — and the CBSE is no exception — seem reluctant to move away from traditional questions based on artificially separated categories like `knowledge,' `understanding,' `application,' and `skill.' It is no surprise that many elite schools are beginning to opt for the International Baccalaureate, not just because it offers status, but also because this system respects individual differences and allows flexibility. If our Boards do not improve, we can expect the divisive character of the system to grow further as a result of the high-fee charging schools moving towards alternative, global certification.

The second area deserving immediate attention is that of teacher training. Apart from rampant commercialisation, teacher training suffers from backward and obsolete notions underpinning most B.Ed. programmes. Most teachers are trained mainly to cover the syllabus in a mechanical, exam-oriented manner. Teachers actively promote a Darwinian ethos in the classroom in which the child who wants to take time to observe or do something to his satisfaction is ridiculed. Let alone a child suffering from a disability, anyone who is slightly `behind' the rest is hastily labelled as a `slow learner.' By insisting that everyone should move at the same pace in all subjects, teachers encourage rote methods and drilling. The training given to teachers fails to impart the ability to distinguish the curriculum from the syllabus and textbooks. It is a commonly held view that the prescribed textbook is the de facto syllabus. Instead of focussing on making subject knowledge accessible to children through the active experience, the teacher merely elucidates the textbook. Even in primary classes, where we ought to conserve resources and use textbooks sparingly, teachers feel handicapped if every child does not bring all the textbooks to school everyday.

The attempt to regulate teacher education through statutory provisions has not worked. The recent move made by the Ministry of Human Resource Development to recognise the academic character of teacher education is in the right direction. This step implies a stronger bonding between all teacher education programmes — irrespective of the age groups that they serve — and universities. Teacher training needs to be embedded in general undergraduate education as has happened in the case of Delhi University's path-breaking B.El.Ed. course and the NCERT's integrated B.Ed. course, the latter of which has concentrated on science but is likely to be broadened in the future. What is special about the B.El.Ed. course is its capacity to develop the teacher's personality and perspective on society by linking subject learning and pedagogy with reflective and creative project work. The course also avoids the rigid lesson-plans traditionally associated with the B.Ed., which focus on the delivery of subject knowledge rather than children's own attempts to make sense of it.

The quality of all teachers, whether they work in a nursery or a senior secondary school, will depend on the initiatives that universities and institutes of advanced learning (such as Indian Institutes of Management and Indian Institutes of Technology) will take in improving the content of teacher training courses. In India we have been reluctant to recognise this simple fact even though it was pointed out by the Kothari Commission 40 years ago. Asking Indian universities to serve as the "conscience of the nation," the Commission suggested that they should take up the responsibility "to assist the schools in their attempts at qualitative self-improvements." Had the Kothari recommended been heeded, university and college campuses would be abuzz during summers with school teachers taking advanced courses in their subjects. Kothari wanted universities to exemplify a culture of tolerance for dissent, to serve the larger community by giving adult education courses and to run pace-setting experimental schools. Viewed in the light of these expectations, the scene looks uninspiring as we listen to the news from M.S. University, Baroda.

In the context of Kothari's suggestion regarding the involvement of universities in training school teachers, it is sad to notice how desolate and quiet our university campuses appear during the summer vacations. This deserted character also conceals an enormous waste of infrastructure and expertise. Forty years later, surely our universities could belatedly decide to act on the Kothari report and initiate programmes for in-service training of school teachers, apart from overhauling the B.Ed. courses. A parallel programme to improve the working conditions of school teachers will have to be undertaken to motivate the young to perceive teaching as a fulfilling career. Let us recall that the quality of education is a reflection of the quality of teachers. Major improvements in their training and working conditions will determine how India fares in the pursuit of economic and social development in the years to come.

(The author is Director of the NCERT.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Caste dynamics and reclassification
Race to the top
The urgency of educational reforms
Putting people's health before company profits
Corrections and Clarifications
Ideas cannot be killed
Blogs won't change the world
Moqtada al-Sadr is back
The Gujjar unrest
A setback
Well done!
Confirm claims

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu