Recasting the school syllabus

By Amrik Singh

EVERY 10-15 years, the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) undertakes an exercise to update school syllabus. This draft is then discussed with various school education boards. In statutory terms, every State is free to adopt the syllabus it wants. In practice, the NCERT provides some kind of structure to the States. Some suggestions are accepted while others are rejected. In essence, this is a good example of the kind of cooperative federalism that ought to prevail.

A few weeks ago, the NCERT came out with a draft for a revised school syllabus. Unlike the last time, the exercise is somewhat detailed. The reasoning behind each recommendation is provided in some detail. This is a positive way of educating the policy- makers. However, the draft tends to be somewhat discursive and can be pared down by 10-15 per cent. Hopefully, this will happen at the next round.

At a recent meeting of the Chairmen of School Education Boards, one full day was given to representatives to say whatever they wanted to say. In consequence, there was a certain amount of repetition. Nonetheless, three misgivings stood out.

The first one related to the state of language teaching. What is called the three-language formula is not being followed by most States. It would be difficult to argue that most people are clear about either their objectives or their priorities. What needs to be avoided is politicking. Unfortunately, neither of these pitfalls has been avoided and the upshot is confusion as well as avoidable wastage of time and energy. A new issue which has emerged during the past 10-15 years is the stage from which English should be introduced at the school level. A couple of States have sought to introduce it right from class I. The NCERT document is specific. It is not in favour of any language other than the mother tongue being used in the beginning. It is from class III that English may be introduced. Till a few years ago, it was introduced from class V or VI. Owing to the increasing popularity of English, it is now proposed to introduce the language from class III.

What, however, is the definition of the mother tongue? There was quite some vagueness. The northeastern States, for example, do not find the proposed formula feasible. There was also a discussion on the time given to the study of languages. Everything remained inconclusive, however. But this much is clear - the States are in touch with the ground reality and, at the same time, sensitive to the increasing role of English in the syllabus.

The second issue that came up for discussion was the use of computers. The NCERT document is somewhat tentative. It was argued that a decision had to be forthright as well as specific. Two problems generally encountered are unavailability of computers and lack of computer literacy among teachers. Various experiments are being made in the States. As the next review of the school syllabus would take place only after 10-12 years, it was felt that the state should provide funding for computer education or enter into an arrangement with private entrepreneurs. The DPEP scheme, at work in more than 150 districts already, can be one source of funding. In addition, several States, especially those which are lagging behind in female literacy, are receiving help from various international sources. That can be another source of funding. What is required is a planned and determined drive towards computer literacy. The training of teachers will have to be done by the States themselves. This aspect of the problem is being neglected almost all over the country.

Thirdly, though there are problems over what is meant by social studies, etc., at the secondary level, the real bottleneck is the role of vocationalisation. There is more talk than action. Not many people understand that while at the primary level students should be encouraged to work and indeed oriented to use their hands, the actual job will be done mainly at the upper primary level. Teachers at this level have grown up in an atmosphere where working with one's hand is not regarded as the `done' thing. Without a radical and sustained reorientation of the staff at the upper primary level (their number is almost a million), the job will just not get done.

The NCERT document is as vague about vocationalisation as it is about computer literacy; the approach is that it is desirable but not essential. This is wrong. If vocationalisation is to be promoted, there can be no getting away from the fact that, at the secondary level, workshop facilities will have to be provided, suitable trainers engaged and the students trained in one or two crafts. The only way to ensure that the training is not casual and marks a total break with what has been happening so far would be to insist on every single student undergoing a test (a) at the lower secondary level in the craft of his/her preference as also (b) his/her knowledge of the use of the computer. Without vocationalisation being made a subject in which the students are tested as they are in any other subject, the move will not take off. When the NCERT itself is unsure of the extent of emphasis to be laid on it, not many States are going to be particularly active.

In India, caste bias is exceptionally strong and working with one's hand is looked down upon. This problem can be overcome only when it is ensured that 15-20 per cent of the school students are trained in one of the crafts. If the schools are mobilised to change our outlook both through precept and practice, it would have a long range and decisive social impact.

While recasting the syllabus is an important exercise, two related dimensions of work at the school level cannot be overlooked. One is the role of textbooks. Over the years, there has been more controversy over the writing of textbooks and the point of view projected in them than about any other issue relating to education, except perhaps the language policy. When the NCERT proposals are discussed, no one is clear about the focus of the textbooks which will have to be written to serve the revised syllabus. This amounts to arguing in an academic vacuum. The second issue relates to what is called the in-service training of teachers. This is something that is handled by the National Council for Teacher Education and not by the NCERT. The painful fact remains that in-service training is a sorely neglected factor in school education. Its role in implementing the revised syllabus cannot be underrated.

One final point. Opinion was divided on the use of grades instead of marks. Those who opposed the change to grades were afraid that both social and academic opinion at the university level was not sympathetic to the proposal. More than anything else, however, it is ignorance which is responsible for some of the misgivings. With 30-40 crores of the population having gone through the educational system accustomed to the use of marks, it would require a major readjustment in their thinking. The issue is somewhat like the introduction of the metric system some decades ago. People had reservations about this new system. But the Government went ahead and today no one has any regret.

At the minimum the university system has to fall in line with this new approach. More than 50 per cent of the school students today join college. The impact of the university system upon the school system is therefore considerable. In fact, there is no dearth of people who complain that the school system is not an autonomous entity by itself but is generally seen as a feeder to the university system. However painful, this is substantially true. It is time the school system learnt to be autonomous and to stand on its own. At the same time, coordination between the school and university systems will have to be ensured.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Political deterioration
Next     : A bitter experience