Common curriculum for a democracy?
ARUNA RATHNAM
Seminar September 2000
IF a curriculum can be viewed as a master plan of what knowledge is considered
worthy of passing on to the next generation, then it embodies a vision
of the future. As
such, a curricular vision is a deeply political exercise. When a nation
state which is
unable to provide even primary education to all its citizens after nearly
53 years of
independence, embarks on a curriculum-making exercise on behalf of a much
fissured
and fractured national community, the political nature of the exercise
necessarily causes
anxiety.
At the beginning of a new millennium, a mass of knowledge is available
to the national
community from the advance of various human enterprises. What knowledge
is to get
into schools which are supposed to be the responsibility of the nation
state? There is,
necessarily, a selection process at work in this exercise; what power relations
determine this selection process in a democratic, multi-cultural nation
state? What kind
of representation of the millions of unlearned citizens can a national
draft drawn up by a
committee (however worthy its members and keen their expertise) offer to
the hitherto
under-served lower classes and castes?
The ideology of a nation at once homogenises and differentiates between
insiders and
outsiders. The cohesion that it imposes is created through imagined and
real, but
selected, historical trajectories cutting across sub-national identities
and loyalties. This
cohesion is institutionalised in various state formations. The school is
a major and
primary site of institutionalised national cohesion in India.
In a democracy, this cohering ideology often conflicts with the ideal of
equality of all
citizens. Further, these conflicts also impact on the ideals of social
justice for historically
oppressed groups as social justice is a corollary to equality. What happens
to the
attainment of these ideals when homogenising nationalist ideologies are
centralised in
state institutions like schools?
That the nation state undertakes to write a curriculum framework for school
education
is hardly surprising, given the centrality of the nation in schooling and
the centrality of
school to the nation state. Nonetheless, the very configuring of the nation
at the centre
of the enterprise needs to be problematized in terms of power relations
between the
visualisers of a future for the national community and those for whom this
future is
visualized.
All these questions and the contradictory relationships between them underlie
my
approach to the curriculum framework under discussion. While I do not think
that each
of these questions needs to be answered in categorical terms, I wish to
retain the
energy and the creative tension these issues evoke.
In this paper I have attempted a close reading of the text in the light
of the above
questions. I have roughly followed the thematic order of the document in
this paper as
well, except in places where I attempt to link different sections for a
clearer
understanding of the document as a whole.
One of the constitutional obligations of a nation state is equal access
to school
education for all its citizens. Equality of educational opportunity through
qualitative
provisions for the same is incumbent not only on the state but also on
the national
community, if we are to consider ourselves a democratic ‘modern’ nation
state. Though
the draft makes loud and repeated noises about ‘cohesive society’, ‘national
identity’
and ‘duties of citizens’, it does not demand the provision of essential
facilities for
learning as a way to ensure equality.
If we as the national community are to take the draft seriously, it is
only realistic to
expect the government to provide the necessary infrastructure to implement
the
curriculum it has drafted on our behalf. If the government takes up the
task of deciding
what future citizens should learn, why doesn’t its own draft curriculum
guarantee
suitable infrastructure for that learning to take place?
The draft does admit the existence of the issue: ‘The most crucial thrust
area of
providing essential facilities for effective transaction of the curriculum
in all
schools/non-formal learning centres still appears to be a mirage,’ says
the draft
truthfully (p. 5). It also acknowledges that ‘several centrally sponsored
schemes, such
as Operation Blackboard, providing science kits, musical instruments etc.
have not
been too fruitful as one-time support does not create much impact’ (ibid).
It goes so far
as to say that ‘no nation can afford to go slow in the matter of curriculum
renewal and
development’ (p. 6).
Yet the draft evades the issue in many indirect and subtle phrases: On
page 14, we are
told in the context of ‘non-formal/alternative schooling’, that we are
‘in a
resource-crunch country where there is not enough funds available for the
formal
schooling’ (sic). On page 25, the emphasis on one of the main themes, that
of ‘ensuring
a (sic) minimum essential level of acquisition of knowledge, understanding
and skill in all
subjects at all stages,’ is undermined by the phrase ‘commensurate with
the learners’
abilities and learning experiences.’ We will not be able to provide essential
learning
experiences, yet the achievement of learning is contingent on that very
provision.
The masterstroke follows in the same page where ‘essential facilities’
for learning is
equated with ‘minimum conditions for learning’ by putting in an ‘or’ between
the two
phrases! As a teacher, that too of English, I find this slippage very troublesome.
(Incidentally, why does the word ‘minimum’ become an inevitable qualifier
whenever
we talk of schools and school-level education?)
The first chapter does say a number of ‘right’ things on various curricular
concerns
and issues. However, these are couched in generalities which are not concretised
in
subsequent chapters on specific subjects. Issues such as ‘recognising interface
between
cognition and emotion’ (1.2.13) hardly find any mention later, either in
sections on
pre-primary or other stages of school education.
There are worrisome exclusions in the curricular concerns: instructional
strategies in
vogue and teacher education do not appear here, but in chapter Five on
‘Implementation and managing the system’ (sic). In the section ‘Child as
constructor of
his knowledge’ (1.2.12) there is no mention of the joy children take in
active learning. It
is all the more ironic because the next section (1.2.13) is, as noted above,
on the
interface between cognition and emotion!
The draft talks emphatically of ‘India’s contributions to world civilizations’
(pages 9,
54, and 55). The concept of ‘India’s contributions to world civilizations’
is reiterated
repeatedly. But there is no mention of Indian civilization having ever
borrowed or
benefited from other civilizations. This omission obscures the important
process of
mutuality between civilizations that have characterised the growth of human
advancement. Pedagogically, especially in social studies, this is a myopic
omission.
Untouchability and caste system are also India’s ‘contributions’; yet there
is no mention
of these even in the context of social studies. There does not seem to
be any willingness
to critically examine this very material practice even in the regional
discussion group
which categorically states, ‘The curriculum should address to (sic) the
positive aspects
of the heritage and not the negative’ (Report on the Regional Seminar,
p. 7). When
sections of students experience the fallout of this aspect of heritage
on a daily basis in
many parts of the country, with their parents’ and their lives at risk
because of their
caste, how can school knowledge exclude this aspect?
The draft actually mentions caste, not as part of heritage, but in a different
context, that
of ‘strengthening national identity and preserving cultural heritage,’
albeit in a misguided
and thoughtless way: ‘At no point of time can the school curriculum ignore
including
specific content which nurtures national identity, a profound sense of
patriotism,
non-sectarian attitudes, capacity for tolerating differences arising out
of caste, religion,
ideology, region, languages, sex, etc.’ (p. 9).
Why should a believer in equality of all humans develop a capacity for
tolerating
differences arising out of caste? To me, as a teacher and as a citizen,
what is to be
inculcated with regard to caste is the capacity to express a ‘learnt rage’,
to use the
words of the Tamil poet Bharati.
The concept of Indian ‘nation’ that emerges from the first chapter, (indeed
throughout
the draft) adds to my concerns: the draft takes for granted that all citizens
who enter
schools should have equal commitment to ‘strengthening national identity’
and ‘national
development.’ It is silent on the obligations and responsibilities of the
government
towards its citizens even in the section on social studies. When the only
school a rural
student can access is run by the government, with no lab or library, no
drinking water
or toilet facilities, what lesson does she learn about the government and
indirectly,
about the nation?
Further, the draft accepts various ‘curricular concerns’ without any question,
especially those concerning citizenship and government; for example, the
continued
‘important role’ of non-formal system in universalising elementary education
(p. 14),
thus letting slide the government’s constitutional obligation to provide
free and
compulsory education to all citizens.
Yet one of the fundamental precepts of the Indian Constitution, secularism,
is
questioned (p. 24); the draft calls for a redefinition of this concept.
There is a
mysterious passive voice in the first sentence of this section: ‘Secularism,
in the present
educational parlance has wrongly been misunderstood as rejection of religion.’
The
next sentence hands us a new mystery: ‘There has now emerged an opinion
that the
term ought to mean equal understanding of and respect for all religions
"sarvadharma
samabhava" or "panthanirapekshata".’
Where has this opinion emerged from? Call me a paranoid Dravida, but the
Sanskrit
quotations here make me uneasy about the origins of this ‘emerging opinion’.
In fact,
the only Indian language from which quotations are drawn is Sanskrit (p.
9 , 10 and
24). Except on page 9, the Sanskrit phrases are not translated. Is Sanskritic
tradition
the common heritage the document harps on?
The draft says all the right things regarding education in general. In
fact, many phrases
are trite and pious, with little meaning. Its biases are many and often
its statements seem
to undermine equality and attempts at social justice.
It talks of relating education to the world of work (p. 15). My objections
to this section
are many: first, there is no definition of what is meant by work education.
Second, by
adding vocational education to this section, the confusion about what constitutes
work
education is confounded. There is a suggestion that even at the primary
stage children
should begin work education by observing work situations (p. 15). To me,
this
suggestion reeks of urban middle class male bias. In most rural and urban
areas,
students from lower classes and castes are involved directly or indirectly
in their
parents’ work. It is only in urban middle class surroundings that students
are unaware
of work situations.
Besides, it brings up another question: for whose benefit are we inculcating
values
related to work at so early a stage? Is this evidence of the middle class
mindset of
viewing other people’s children as mere ‘hands’ to be trained, as Myron
Weiner
pointed out (1994)? Are we going to parade to the MNCs a disciplined labour
force
with primary schooling?
In a country where child labour is widely prevalent, especially in the
unorganised
sector, and many middle school students hover precariously between going
full time to
work and attending school, this suggestion of work education to ‘reinforce
respect for
meaningful work’ is ridiculous. Many of my students who work part-time
in the
unorganised sector in Chennai, say that they respect such work because
it is
meaningful, but their respect for school knowledge is low because it is
not. It is a pity
that such students’ voices (these students are in the majority) are not
taken into account
on what constitutes meaningful education.
Another problem in this section relates to the suggestion that the focus
of vocational
education ‘has to be on the vast unorganised sector of self-employment’
(p. 16). It is
not clear if vocational education should train students to start small
businesses of their
own or whether the training should involve participating in or working
for ‘unorganised
sector’ during and after their education. For, it is this sector that often
exploits underage
workers. And in the context of increasing contract work on piece rate by
MNCs to
reduce costs, this emphasis on training for the ‘unorganised sector’ assumes
sinister
overtones. Clarity in this matter is very important.
Under the title ‘CultureSpecific Pedagogies’, the document emphasizes the
need to
use pedagogies meaningful to the cultural milieu of the students (p. 18).
How about
evaluation strategies? Can they be made situation-specific? The document
also talks
about the importance of oral expression (pp. 40-41) at all stages. But
under
‘Evaluation’, there is no concrete measure suggested except a general statement:
‘More
use of oral testing should be made to assess the development of basic skills
in
language...’ (p. 91).
If a National Testing Service is to be established, what happens to flexibility
measures
and internal autonomy? Would ETS draw up a list of skills for all languages
for schools
to use? If so, what happens to speakers of dialects at the primary stage?
This is a
crucial question for children from dalit and other lower caste communities;
they are not
allowed to interact with their upper caste peers; their dialects are far
removed from the
standardised form of the dominant language which is closer to upper-caste
speech
(Ilaiah, 1996; Suresh, 1987). Teachers are not always aware of the significance
of this
and condemn dalit children’s language. How will oral testing take care
of such
nuances?
ETS is likely to conduct common tests for students from all the boards.
(It is not clear
what the purpose of ETS will be.) Each board of secondary education sets
its students
different standards; evaluation methods are different. Content and instructional
strategies are different. Learning experiences are necessarily richer for
the students of
some boards (example, ICSE) than others (example, regional medium state
boards).
As things stand, most of the students of regional medium state boards are
pushed out of
common entrance exams for professional courses. Will ETS kind of common
standards
create another glass ceiling for them, just as testing in English has done
in the case of
several entrance exams?
Such questions become urgent especially when we link the issues of instruction
in core
areas to the aims listed in chapter Two on pages 23-25. I want to quote
the document
on a crucial idea: ‘ensuring to (sic) minimum essential level of acquisition
of knowledge,
understanding and skill in all subjects at all stages, commensurate with
the learners’
abilities and learning experiences’ (p. 25; emphasis mine).
In the section on mathematics, after some pertinent questions about maths
for 10 years
of general education, there is a statement: ‘It goes without saying that
mathematical
reasoning demands higher mental ability’ (p. 43). Why does it go without
saying?
Where does such a statement, with a loaded mind set come from? The word
‘ability’ is
often used in contexts of ‘inherent quality’. Is that the sense in both
places?
To me, as a woman, it reverberates with historical echoes: women were not
considered
to possess the necessary ‘intelligence’ for maths and hard sciences not
so long ago.
Dalits, men and women, were not credited with the ‘intelligence’ for literacy.
How will
this higher mental ability be assessed? By whom? When will this assessment
take
place? What kind of evidence is available for such a statement?
Further down in the same paragraph the document claims, ‘many educationists
feel
that mathematics should be compulsory only up to Class VIII (sic), while
some other
opine (sic) that there should be two types of mathematics courses at secondary
level
and senior secondary level. These courses should be need-based. At the
secondary
level there should be one course for those who will pursue mathematics
as their future
career and another course for those for whom Class X will be a terminal
stage. As such
the important issue is what sort of mathematical skills and competency
are required
upto ten years of mathematics education’ (p. 43).
Now, who are these educationists? Why doesn’t an important document like
this draft
curriculum have references from where it draws such extraordinary ideas?
Do these
educationists seriously think that by end of class VIII students know enough
to make
an informed choice about their career? And how many students really have
a choice
about what they study beyond class X? And: does the last sentence of the
quotation
talk about the second stream? If so, it sounds like the two-stream idea
is a foregone
conclusion and so is not ‘an important issue.’ I find the entire treatment
too cavalier.
The document does mention the problems leading to student frustration in
mathematics
learning with regard to content and instructional methods on page 44. What
is the place
of educational environment and experiences in assessing this ‘higher mental
ability?’
Will learning experiences or lack of them before class VIII be taken into
account during
assessment? Or will ETS be involved in framing tests for these too? There
are far too
many disturbing questions that go unanswered by this section. How these
questions will
be resolved is likely to affect the future of millions of children as well
as the future of
mathematics education in this country. Besides, if equality of opportunity
is to be
maintained within the schooling system, the two-stream idea cannot be a
solution.
Another example of middle class bias is the emphasis on the use of calculators.
Realistically, what percentage of pupils from lower classes across the
country can
afford to possess one? If the issue is resolved in favour of the calculator,
which
segments of students are most likely to possess one? Will the government
provide each
class in public schools with calculators as part of the minimum conditions
of learning?
Far more serious issues relate to the availability of qualified math teachers,
student-friendly instructional materials and evaluation methods. Yet there
is very little
concrete or constructive on these issues.
In terms of language instruction, this framework does not offer an improved
conception
of English as a second language. First, second and third languages are
clubbed together
under ‘Language’ (38-42). Pedagogically speaking, this is a disservice
to teachers,
students and to syllabus writers. Phrases like ‘suitable standard, literary
value,
functional and applied grammar, various forms of literature’ figure all
over these pages.
In 10 years of general education, how do we deal with literary value in
second
language? How are first and second language instructions conceptualised?
How are
these differentiated?
My teaching experience shows that we, as an educational community, have
no clear
concept of what kind of competencies will help learners of English as a
second
language. Nor have we invested serious thought or capital in developing
instructional
packages for oral and listening skills, either for the teachers or for
students. A vast
majority of teachers have little consistent exposure to spoken English.
If we are earnest in proclaiming the importance of English as the link
language to the
technological world, we need a radical reconceptualisation in this area.
We need to
evolve instructional strategies to teach this language effectively, for
student frustration in
learning of English is as high as it is maths. Effective teaching of English
as a second
language will go a long way in reducing existing disparities between the
students of the
various boards of education.
That the draft curriculum has problems with definitions has been mentioned
before. A
truly hilarious example is the set of definition-like sentences at the
beginning of Section
2.5.3, titled ‘Science and Technology’: ‘Science and Technology is a great
human
enterprise. It is a self-growing, self-pervading, self accelerating and
self correcting
enterprise which originated in the collective curiosity of man since time
immemorial’ (p.
44; emphasis mine). I have not managed to grasp the latter sentence. Perhaps
readers
can explain it to me. I request them to note the use of ‘human’ in the
first sentence and
‘man’ in the second, as an indication of a particular mind set.
I am surprised that science is clubbed with technology as one of the core
disciplines.
This coupling eminently reflects the lack of clarity in thinking that pervades
the
document. Further, the rest of this section mires one in confusion: there
is the usual
suspect, the scientific temper with capital S and T (p. 45). I am as baffled
by the
definite article as by the capital letters.
Further down the page comes a paragraph on scientific literacy. I do not
wish to be
accused of quoting out of context: ‘Science operates through its processes
and, when
combined with technology, improves the quality of life and serves the society.
Therefore, the basic philosophy of science is shifting from scientific
literacy to scientific
and technological literacy.’ I am not clear if this refers to a paradigm
shift in the field of
hard sciences, or if it refers to a need to change the educational aim
within Indian
schools. The immediate paragraph confounds the issue by listing seven dimensions
of
‘scientific literacy’.
The two stream idea surfaces in this section too. Again with the same mysterious
‘many
educationists, school teachers and teacher educators’ seem to advocate
this idea (p.
48). The document itself raises the questions how such streaming is likely
to affect
equality and create further differentiation among the students. The participants
of the
regional discussion in Mysore have not supported the two stream idea, and
have rightly
pointed out that more process-oriented curricular transactions are part
of the answer
(Regional Seminar Report, p. 13).
With regard to both science and math education, there have been systematic
and
effective experiments in many parts of the country. Instructional materials,
methods and
supplementary materials have been prepared and used by teachers in many
schools.
Organisations such as Homi Bhabha Centre in Bombay, Eklavya in M.P. and
P.K.
Srinivasan’s Mathematics Centre in Chennai, peoples’ science movements
in different
states, to cite a few examples, have evolved and refined exciting and lucid
ways to
teach complex concepts in science and math by actively involving teachers.
There are
also individual teachers who have developed low-cost aids using locally
available
resources to improve instructional environment and enrich learning experiences.
An effort to collate and distribute the fruits of these experiences will
enhance the
quality of teaching and learning in these crucial areas. Curricular plans
without
constructive instructional components tend to muddy the waters. With equal
emphasis
on curriculum and instruction, we can better serve our student community
and avoid
proposing discriminatory streaming.
Social sciences have been cursed with neglect and lack of conceptual clarity
in school
curricula over the years. Inspite of being a site of social contestation,
this core area has
been treated rather casually by students, teachers and parents. Curriculum
planners
seem to increase the confusion and contempt to which this exciting core
area has been
subjected to. This document is no exception: It talks about globalisation
and localisation
as important curricular concerns and then goes on to suggest a theme-based
approach.
Again, the terms are so generalised that the section indicates no clear
direction in this
area.
The prize for clear-as-mud writing on the topic to date has to go the paragraph
on
paradigm shift in social sciences on page 53. Such writing exacerbates
the conceptual
mess we have engendered in social studies at school level. The specific
core themes
suggested in page 54 negates much of what the draft says earlier and later
in this
section.
An interdisciplinary approach is suggested, along with components of value
education,
work education, issues related to the national ideology and all the other
concerns
featured in chapter 1. Linkages with math and science knowledge are also
suggested. I
wonder if it is humanly possible to write a syllabus based on these pages
for 10 years
of school-level social studies, and do justice to the interdisciplinary
demands of the
enterprise. And will such a loaded syllabus be meaningful to students?
As it is, social studies is a neglected area, both in terms of availability
of qualified
teachers and learning materials. A theme based approach needs interdisciplinary
expertise to use even prepackaged modules in instructional contexts. What
kind of
teacher preparation and instructional development is envisaged to effect
this approach?
Or are such ideas beyond the purview of this document?
The urban bias that pervades this document manifests itself in unexpected
places: on
page 99, while suggesting that local environment can provide rich resources
for
learning, the document looks at rural environment only in physical terms.
In human and
cultural terms the rural areas seem to have nothing to offer! Such elements
are
attributed to the urban areas.
Evaluation strategies need to be built into the instructional processes
so that students
learn how to improve and consolidate their skills, competencies and abilities
in any
given curricular area. National level testing cannot help in this aim.
Life long learning can
be achieved only if the learner is equipped with critical skills regarding
her own learning.
Similar attempts are necessary in teacher education too.
This issue brings me to the presence of teachers in this document: I am
not sure if
teachers were consulted at any stage in preparing the draft. Occasional
references to
teachers do occur, especially in connection with the two-stream idea in
science and
maths. The only other reference to teachers leaves me angry and appalled:
‘Even
empowerment of teachers as curriculum developers would be desirable’ (p.
99;
emphasis mine). There is a section on teacher education, which talks mainly
about
technical support from various sources for teacher training.
Under teacher training significant themes, that of professional pride in
their work and
the affective aspects of being with children, need to be incorporated.
For primary
school teacher-trainees, school visits, with specific attention to resource-rich
and
resource-poor learning environments may be introduced. Curriculum theory
hardly
finds a place in teacher education syllabus. It is important that teachers
be familiar with
this area to effectively create instructional packages using local sources
and resources,
combining them with outside inputs through information technology.
Another reason why teachers should be empowered to engage creatively with
the
processes of curricular and instructional designing has to do with decentralisation
to the
classroom level. Educational planning and execution have for too long followed
top-down models. This has resulted in ineffective teaching and deskilling
and
demoralisation of teachers as professionals. The success stories from DPEP
projects
should have taught our educational planners that empowering of teachers
in this manner
is an important step in achieving the constitutional obligation of providing
free and
compulsory education in an effective fashion.
In conclusion, I return to the questions that I posed in the beginning:
a democratic
nation institutionalises schooling to provide equality of opportunity in
every walk of life
to all its future citizens. As long as we have differentiated secondary
education boards
that provide different levels of educational experiences to different sections
of society,
no common framework of content can help the nation to be cohesive. If we
as a
society truly believe in democratic principles, we will galvanise ourselves
and our
political leadership to provide the best to our poor schools, instead of
depriving them
further by diluting the curriculum and obfuscating our elitist mind-set
with words like
‘ability’.
This document focuses only on the content of school curriculum, thus badly
fracturing
the fundamental idea of curriculum by unequal emphasis on content and instructional
process. Both are equally important as one can be destroyed by the poor
quality of the
other. Without specifying instructional components clearly, we cannot hope
to achieve
any level of competency in core areas.
A vast majority of our children study in schools where the only available
instruction is
the lecture by teachers. A minority, on the other hand, has access to the
best methods
and materials the country has to offer. A common framework of content,
which is what
this document turns out to be, can only widen the disparity by ignoring
the modalities of
learning experiences.
It is unimaginative and sterile educational planning that suggests a two-stream
idea for
the first 10 years of education. If educational planning divides an already
fissured
society further, it will be inimical to democratic principles, and ultimately
to the very
cohesion of society that the document seeks to create. A truly egalitarian
framework
must exhibit the political will and commitment towards establishing schools
with the
essential conditions of learning, i.e. demanding excellent and resource-rich
facilities.
A mere reiteration of pieties in school will not inculcate values in students.
A student
frustrated by an arid learning atmosphere has nothing to show for her commitment
to
the nation, as the school is the primary site of her interaction with the
abstraction of a
nation. Victorious India that the national anthem celebrates will not be
at hand if our
educational planning and execution continue to waste millions of minds
through
undemocratic distribution of resources.
Democratic processes need to be seen and felt in practice if civic sense
is to be
inculcated in young minds. An adolescent will not be proud of her society
and country if
she cannot commute to school in safety, if she cannot be elected as the
school pupil
leader, or if she is not provided with the facilities for learning without
fear, no matter
how ancient and glorious its cultural heritage.
References
K. Ilaiah, Why I am not a Hindu. Samya Publications, Calcutta, 1996.
J. Suresh, Language Socialisation of Scheduled Caste Children in India:
Tamilnadu – A Case
Study. Office of the Registrar General for the Census of India, Delhi,
1987.
M. Weiner, ‘India’s Case Against Compulsory Education’, Seminar (413),
January 1994, pp. 83-87.