REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ANNEXURE-X)
The Group on Elementary Education was chaired by Dr. (Smt.) Komala Das, Minister of State for Education, Orissa.
In view of the vast subject for discussion and the limitation of time, the Group decided that it would concentrate on discussing Minimum Levels of Learning, Micro-Planning and Non-Formal Education.
Minimum Levels of Learning Recognising that Universalisation of Education does not mean universal enrolment only, but also universal achievement of all children in the school going age, the Group discussed the strategy of Minimum Essential Level of Learning in this context. Dr. R. H. Dave, the Chairman of the Committee set up to lay down the Minimum Levels of Learning for the primary stage and to recommend a procedure for comprehensive, learner evaluation sketched in brief the reasons why it was necessary to draw up minimum levels of learning as performance goals for universal achievement and for measuring progress towards UEE. The major concern behind the need to have minimum levels of learning was to reduce the existing disparities and improve the level of achievement in rural areas, socially and economically backward areas and thus work towards the establishment of equity and social Justice. It is in this context that the Minimum Essential Levels of Learning were proposed.
It was seen that one of the factors which affected the quality of primary education was an overambitious and excessively heavy curriculum that had little relevance to the lives and needs of the majority of students and had compelled a joyless rote memorisation and overemphasis on textbooks. What was required was a curriculum that equipped children to acquire mastery over competencies and skills essential for them to function as literate adults in their communities even if they do not get the opportunity for further studies. The Minimum Levels of Learning, therefore, emphasise relevance and functionality. Another important feature
151
of the MLL is achievability. Reduced quantum of learning will enable children to learn to mastery levels, even while permitting the teacher to relate text-book information and objective reality into, a meaningful process of understanding and application through experimentation, exploration and activity-based teaching. The reduced quantum will thus not only permit a greater joyousness in the class room but also by virtue of a good mastery over the earlier learning units, the ability to progress faster through later stages of education.
The strategy of Minimum Levels of Learning will provide the common basis for both formal and non-formal modes of imparting primary level education. This strategy can, therefore, be effectively utilised or establishing comparability and equivalence of achievement between the formal and the non-formal system, at least in the essential subjects of study such as Language and Mathematics.
An important aspect of the MLLs was that it took into account the existing disparities between regions, districts, and States in achievement levels. The strategy for introducing MLLs, therefore, envisaged that each region would examine the MLLs in relation to its existing conditions and achievement levels and modify them suitably before accepting them as expected goals of performance. Thus in areas with significantly lower achievement levels, intermediate levels of MLLs could be set with time-bound targets. Different regions could thus have differentiated MLLs. The endeavour of this strategy would be to direct better results where levels of learning were lower and to consciously accelerate the pace of development in the interior regions thereby reducing disparities and equalising the minimum standards over the entire country.
Continuous and comprehensive evaluation form an important part of the strategy of MLLs. Having set MLLs as the performance goal, continuous and comprehensive evaluation would ensure the attainment of competencies and skills through continuous and periodical evaluation and corresponding recedial measures as Well as summative assessment of performance from stage to stage.
In the discussion that ensured, several viewpoints were high- lighted. The opinion was expressed that there was nothing new in the subject, and that the work on defining the Minimum Levels of Learning had been done in this country as early as 1978.
152
Instead of `re-inventing' the wheel each time, the Government should be advised to take earlier experiments and studies into account. While recognising that the need to specifying MLLs was long overdue some members expressed concern for the learning needs of gifted children should also be given some thought. Others felt that the better achieving schools should be allowed to progress ahead at their own pace. Since a majority of children grow up in billingual or multilingual environment, their home language should be used as the strategy for learning the school language. The view was also expressed that there was danger in taking the MLLs prescribed by the R. H. Dave Commitee as the final word on the subject and as the basis for deciding the progress of UEE. Some members expressed the view that crux of the matter lay in making the teachers perform their duties and not only in re-defining the curriculum. It was stated that measures such as continuous in-service teacher training, provision of Early Childhood Education, convergence of services, provision of facilities such as transportation, etc., aimed at reducing drop-outs and improving the functioning of the schools would also need to be given continued importance.
Overall, however, the Group accepted that fixing the minimum levels of learning as an achievable, relevant, functional and measureable goal for the schools system was a significant move forward. It was seen that measuring the progress of the educational system by the number of children who attained MLLs would be a distinct improvement over measuring the progress by the additional enrolments into the system. The Group felt that MLLs, taken together with a continuous and comprehensive evaluation system, would help the teachers to control the pace of learning and get an insight into the learning difficulties and learning achievements of children and thereby help them to structure their pace, method and success of teaching. A proper analysis of the evaluation results would also indicate to the educational planners the kind of inputs that are necessary to improve conditions facilities and the quality of teaching in schools. Thus, the programmes for teacher training, improvement in facilities, supervision of schools, etc., would all be guided by a proper understanding of classroom processes and as we structure towards a well-defined goal.
The Group saw the MLLs as an effective solution to the vexing question of comparability of standard between formal and non formal systems. It was that the question no longer remained one of NFE conforming to the primary school standards but became
153
one of the viability of a different model and methodology to attain a prescribed level of learning.
Some concern was expressed by the Group that the MLLs might result in imposing a centralised curriculum on the system. It was clarified by Prof. R. H. Dave that, in fact, the move would encourage flexibility, innovation and experimentation, and greater involvement of teachers with the teaching-learning processes and materials taking account the local realities and resources. It was also clarified that the recommended levels were not prescriptive and that each State or any other unit would be advised to measure the present levels of learning of children, and on that basis, decide the quantum of skills and competencies it would wish to keep as the minimum for mastery by all children as the goal for the system.
After the detailed discussion, the Committee recommends as follows :
(1) The strategy of Minimum Levels of Learning (MLL) should be accepted as an important component of all educational planning for universalisation of elementary education, including non-formal education.
(2) Steps should be taken to widely disseminate the strategy and concept of MLL, highlighting its in-built flexibility and the active involvement in a decentralised manner of teachers, educators, parents, etc.
(3) Concrete measures should be initiated as early as possible to implement the whole strategy in order to improve the quality of achievement coupled with equity and social Justice.
(4) The State Governments and Voluntary Organisa- tions, universities and other institutions should be provided assistance, financial and academic, to operationalise the strategy.
(5) Since the ultimate objective is universalisation of elementary education, a similar exercise should be initiated for the upper primary level so that improvement in attainment together with social justice and equity is ensured at the upper-primary level also.
154
Micro Planning At the outset, the Working Group wanted to be fully apprised of the main parameters of micro-planning. These were explained as follows :
Efforts have been made in the past to bring elementary education system closer to the community. The modalities created over the years have continued to serve the well-to-do sections of the society, which co-opted into their fold, the influential teachers and other persons concerned with delivery of basic education services. This powerful section has protected the disfunctionality of the school system and has not made much contribution to enhancing the participation of children in the elementary educational system. The disfunctionality of the elementary education system has consequently reached an alarming stage. In large parts of the country, schools are running in an unsatisfactory manner, children drop-out in large numbers, and the levels of their learning are well below the expected norms. A significant percentage of children has remained altogether deprived of the benefits of elementary education.
The situation has to change. A widespread mobilisation has to be generated to energise the hitherto deprived sections in the countryside. Mobilisation could be generated with the of mass-media, traditional and folk forms of communication and person to person contact by committed activists. Such a communication strategy should highlight the present status of elementary education and indicate areas in which useful intervention can be made. The mobilisation which has got generated in several parts of the country under the National Literacy Mission, should also be harnessed in this behalf. Simultaneously with the creation of an environment, large-scale programme of training and orientation should be taken up for village youth and women. The purpose behind this should be to explain the responsibility of the village community towards elementary system and engendering a confidence among them to secure accountability of the elementary system to the Village Education Committee. The trained women and youth will need to work in rapport with the local level Pan- chayati Raj structure as well as with teachers and AE/NFE instructors. The latter viz. elementary school teachers and AE/NFE instructors, should be given confidence that the process of micro-planning is not a confrontation with them but a new kind of mutually beneficial partnership. This group (comprising oriented women and youth) could take the shape of Mahila
155
Samooh (as has happened in several hundred villages in Rajasthan where the Women's Development Programme is being implemented), or Village Education Committee (VEC). This Mahila Samooh or VEC will not be a structure only in name as in some States. This organisation will have its own inner strength. It must take the form of Lok Shakti/Stree Shakti. This group (MS or VEC) will need to be provided a support system in the form of school complexes or a block level education Organisation which is permeated by a similar spirit.
The elementary education system (Primary and upper primary school as well as the NFE Centre) will be accountable to this kind of a village education structure. In concrete terms, accountability will imply an effective say (without interference in academic aspects) in the running of elementary education programmes. While. on the one hand, this MS/VEC will secure accountability of the elementary education system, it will, on the other hand, help the schools and NFE centres in their work. The group will undertake school mapping to ensure that practically every child of the village has access to elementary education; it will monitor from day to day and week to week the rate of participation of children in the elementary education system to ensure retention and active participation; and, it will also take interest to see that the shortcomings and difficulties found by teachers are resolved and the children have satisfactory achievement in cognitive as well as non-cognitive areas.
The Working Group endorses the micro-planning approach for improvement of elementary education programmes and calls upon all State Governments to take steps for its careful implementation. It requests the Central Government, NIEPA and NCERT to actively associate themselves with the State Govts. in effective implementation of this approach as early as possible. In doing so, the State Govts. may have to incur a good deal of expenditure, which should be built into various schemes of the Central and State Govts. and the additionality required should be separately provided as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The Working Group is also of the view that the monitoring of the present status of elementary education and in particular of micro- planning, NFE programme, achievement related progress of pupil's etc. should be effectively monitored.
School Calendar The Group felt that School Calendar should match the major agriculture activities, socio-economic factors of the region. This
156
would improve attendance of children in schools on the one hand and control teacher absenteeism on the other.
Non-formal Education The Group noted that in the present socio-economic condition of the country, all children cannot take advantage of school and therefore, non-formal education will have to continue to play a significant role in providing learning opportunities to children (i) of small and remote habitations, and (ii) who because of economic compulsions or social constraints cannot attend the schools, being pre-occupied with a variety of economic activities including sibling care, domestic chores, work in agriculture, etc. The Group also rioted with regret that the Non-Formal Education system in many parts of the country is not working satisfactorily. It stressed the need to make a success of Non-Formal Education and to operationalise effectively a system of Non-Formal Education to meet the needs of the out-of schools children in such a manner that the achievements of the learners are comparable to those in the schools. Analysing the factors contributing to the present unsatisfactory performance of the system, the Group recommended the following measures for revitalising the NonFormal stream of education:-
(i) Greater financial allocations are necessary both from the Central Government and the State Governments. To begin with, the Central share for co-educational centres should be enhanced from the existing 50% to 75%.
(ii) Honorarium to Instructors should be enhanced suitably keeping in mind parallel structures.
(iii) Adequate teaching learning material should be provided to the learning centres somewhat on the lines of material supplied under the Operation Blackboard.
(iv) Children in NFE programme should be provided free textbooks and stationery. The NFE Centre should emphasise activities which are relaxing and joyful for the participants.
(v) Attention should be paid to improve all textbooks and learning material adopting to the extent possible the Improved Pace and Content of Learning approach followed for the primers of Adult Education.
157
(vi) The pedagogy should be improved to emphasise learning rather than rote memorisation of texts and to condense the courses to the extent possible.
(vii) The training of Instructors should be strengthened with a provision for recurrent continuous training through periodic-monthly or quarterly-meetings and other modes.
(viii) The transferability of children between Formal and Non-Formal system should be made common, easy and convenient. A system of certification having equivalence with primary schools should be provided. this should be possible as both Formal and NonFormal Centres will aim at attaining the same minimum levels of learning.
(ix) Management system should be improved to ensure timely payment to Instructors, effective supervision, regular and timely supply of teaching learning materials.
The Group also recommended that the existing Scheme of Non-Formal Education should be revised, taking into account the above suggestions. It also felt that the revised scheme should be discussed with the representatives of the State Governments and Voluntary Organisations before finalising it.
The Group also strongly felt that the States should be given a clear assurance that Central assistance for the programme would be available at least during the VIII Five Year Plan, if possible till the year 2000 A.D.
Teacher Education 1. The Group stressed that a proper system of teacher prepa- ration is essential for improving standards of education. It dis- cussed and endorsed the features of the proposed NCTE Bill which were circulated for the Board's consideration, with the observation that all States of a region should be represented on the Regional Committee and these Committees should be enabled to take care of regional and state-to-state variations.