Striving for Effective Teaching and Learning

SYSTEMS IN TRANSITION:A Case Study of DPEP in India

Subir Shukla

Any reform program attempting renewal in the Indian primary education system attracts many descriptions -- presumptuous, doomed, over-ambitious, much-needed, short-lived.... India’s District Primary Education Program (DPEP) is no exception. What is different about this reform effort aimed at universalization of elementary education in India is that the word ‘interesting’ is now beginning to be associated with it. This case study seeks to explore some of the reasons why DPEP is now an interesting example of a large-scale educational program. After a general introduction to the project the document then focuses on issues dealing with improving the quality of education.

THE DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION PROGRAM -- AN INTRODUCTION

Setting the Stage

The National Policy on Education (1986) brought to center-stage the national responsibility of creating a literate population. The World Conference on Education for All (EFA) held at Jomtien, Thailand in 1990 and the EFA Summit of December 1993 in Delhi concretized India’s resolve to provide basic education for all. Economic reform also led to an awareness of the need to pay greater attention to increasing public expenditure on education as well as improving participation and efficiency in the delivery of services. The political and administrative will to reform education was strong. However, the financial support available was limited, with expenditure on education constituting around 3.23% of the Gross National Product (of which roughly one-third was allocated to elementary education). The willingness to support and augment this effort by the international community led to the evolution of a new program, now known as the District Primary Education Program.

A fairly intense consultative process between the Government of India, national institutions and international aid agencies led to the conceptualization of the District Primary Education Program (DPEP). Initiated towards the end of 1994 in 42 districts across 7 states, the coverage of the program now includes nearly 160 districts in 14 states of the country. Chosen on the basis of female literacy being below the national or state average, the districts included are easily among the more ‘backward’ in the country. In terms of the number of children benefited, the program now reaches out to nearly half the children in India, most of whom are from the poorest sections of society. As of now, in addition to contributions from the Government of India and the participating state governments, major funding agencies include the World Bank, the European

Commission, the Department for International Development (UK), the Government of Netherlands and UNICEF.

Though DPEP is a centrally sponsored scheme, the Government of India is expected to play a facilitative rather than a controlling role. Implementation takes place through autonomous State Implementation Societies (SISs), which also have counterparts at the district level. The establishment of these Societies was based on the notion that on the one hand, completely independent and parallel structures face animosity from the system that can severely handicap reform efforts and on the other hand, programs that were implemented entirely through the government machinery were soon ‘co-opted’ and ‘governmentalized’. Therefore, the State Implementation Societies represent a ‘middle path’ in that these societies draw their authority from the participation of representatives of the system. However, the Societies maintain sufficient financial and executive autonomy to respond rapidly and flexibly to the situation.

The structure and direction of DPEP derive from concern for the following three dimensions of providing universal basic education.

EnrollmentAn estimated 33 million children were out of school, of whom 60% were girls. The un-reached included those living in remote, scattered small habitations; girls, working children, disabled children, scheduled castes (also known as the Harijans or Dalits standing outside the fourfold caste structure) and scheduled tribes (who often constitute the most marginalized and deprived sections of society). This is sought to be achieved through inputs such as environment building activities, community mobilization and enrollment drives to universalize enrollment; construction of school buildings and rooms designed to facilitate learning, appointments of teachers, and provision of sanitary facilities. It is emphasized that though infrastructure is important, it is not in itself sufficient to bring about the changes desired. Hence, the DPEP Guidelines (which provide the framework within which all states implement the program) stated that not more that 24% of the overall investment could be spent on construction and not more than 6% on management costs. These conditions have compelled managing teams to expand the horizon on quality improvement efforts, for the more money they needed on the infrastructure front, the more they were required to allocate for quality improvement. Retention and quality of learningRetention rates stood at around 40%, with the greatest drop out occurring between grades I and II. Initial surveys by organizations such as the NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training, the apex resource organization assisting and advising the central and state governments on academic matters related to school education) indicated that quality aspects played a significant role in retention rates being low. Baseline studies on learning achievement, taken up as a preparatory activity across the country, too, revealed appalling levels of learning across the board.

The situation of the nearly 580,000 schools that existed in 1994-95 was characterized by poor infrastructure, and unacceptable teacher-student ratio. Worse, schools were often dysfunctional as a result of teacher absenteeism. Teachers who did work honestly were usually isolated, had little access to academic support or encouragement, and equally little say in decisions affecting what they were required to do. Curriculum and materials burdened teachers and children alike -- the notion of any teaching and learning material other than the textbook did not exist, while dull and cognitively overloaded textbooks were seen as the actual curriculum and compelled children to ‘learn’ through rote memorization alone. A fear-generating examination system that did not

2

really evaluate learning, ‘inspectorial’ supervision rather than teacher support, and irrelevant, ritualistic teacher education as well as in-service training -- all these played a role in dissuading children from persisting in school and attaining reasonable levels of learning.

In DPEP, the issue of retention is addressed through supportive infrastructure, enabling school flexibility to suit learners’ needs, and, of course, quality improvement. The area of quality improvement is sought to be addressed through child-friendly curricula and materials, effective pedagogy, evaluation, in-service teacher training and supportive supervision.

Institutional capacity BuildingAt the state level the SCERTs (State Councils of Educational Research and Training, the apex resource organization at the state level, advising the state government on academic matters related to school education) and DIETs (District Institutes of Education and Training, the nodal institute at the district level for pre-service and in-service training of teachers as well as improvement in overall quality of education) faced many problems: lack of infrastructure and staff, insufficient opportunities for professional development, an unwillingness to engage with field realities and an inability to provide credible leadership (especially in the case of DIETs). There was also the absence of any academic support structure for teachers below the district level, leaving a small institution such as the DIET to serve the needs of thousands of teachers. One feature that characterized all institutions and structures was a centralized decision-making procedure, leaving little scope for local initiative. A unique feature of the initial DPEP strategy was the creation of a group of professionals at the national level who would provide resource inputs into various aspects of the program. Especially in the early years of DPEP this body, known as the Technical Support Group, provided critical inputs both at the national and state level implementation.

Given India’s diversity, it was evident that a centralized, pre-defined model was unlikely to work. While the center would certainly need to take initiative and provide the much needed financial and technical support, it would ultimately be local efforts addressing local issues that would be successful. It is for this reason that the program was conceptualized as a district primary education program, wherein every district makes perspective plans as well as annual work plans and budgets, with resources being allocated according to requirements specific to the district. This allows states to tailor the project to the diverse geographical, cultural, and socio-economic district contexts.

At the grassroots level this realization has manifested itself in the involvement of local self-governing bodies (the panchayats) and constitution of Village Education Committees (VECs) to enable the community to contribute to the school. In many states, activities such as the construction of school buildings under DPEP have been undertaken by the VECs, with technical inputs coming from the program. Community structures such as Village Education Committees and Parent Teacher Councils have been formed around each school included in the program to enhance participation as well monitoring by the community.

On-site academic support structures A number of quality improvement efforts have floundered as a result of there being no on-site support mechanisms for teachers undertaking the complex endeavor of bringing about effective changes in their classroom. It was to facilitate this that the Cluster Resource Center (CRC) was conceptualized. Usually, a school is designated as a CRC, and strengthened with the provision of space for meetings and a library useful for teachers. Typically a CRC serves around 40 teachers, from 6-10 schools located within a few kilometers of the center. The center’s work is facilitated by a full-time Coordinator, who undertakes support

3

visits to schools, organizes monthly meetings and makes the center available as an academic resource for teachers. The CRCs, in turn, are facilitated by the Block Resource Center (BRC). Located at the block level, the BRC is a sub-district training center that provides in-service training to teachers of the block as well as academic monitoring and supervision. Both the CRC and the BRC facilitate grassroots implementation while providing on-site and on-going academic support to teachers. They have increased the reach of the program tremendously, enabling it to reach out to hundreds of thousands of teachers every month through school visits, meetings and dissemination of material. These centers also facilitate community involvement with schools and act as an outreach medium. It can be said that these are the cutting edge of DPEP and where these centers are functioning well, the objectives of the program are more likely to be fulfilled.

TOWARDS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

This case study focuses on the second objective of DPEP, that is, to improve the quality of education. First, it expands on five major dimensions related to this area. Secondly, it discusses the process of quality improvement. And finally, the study shares some important lessons that have emerged from the last few years of project implementation.

Considering India’s federal structure and the fact that school education is a state subject in the Constitution, the nature of interventions has not been in ‘central’ control of DPEP. This has led to each state being a DPEP of its own kind. Thus DPEP is somewhat of a ‘loose, baggy monster’ and generalizations should be treated with caution. Secondly, DPEP has constantly been growing from its initial 42 districts to its present number of nearly 160. This has meant that there have always been some ‘new’ areas in the program along with some ‘old’ areas. Often, lessons of the old have been transferred to the new, only to discover that yet further changes are required. Thus, the program cannot really be thought of as having reached a defined level of understanding. This evolving nature of the program, too, makes it difficult to offer strong generalizations.

Dimensions of quality

Improvement in the quality of education in DPEP involves the following five dimensions: Curriculum, Pedagogy, Teaching and Learning Materials, Evaluation and In-service Teacher Training.

CurriculumThis refers to the learning objectives and experiences intended to help achieve these objectives (the syllabus is included in this). By and large, curricula (the term ‘curriculum’ is used in this case study as referring to a document that spells out what should be taught, along with accompanying background material and rationale) in various states have been out of sync with reality in that they failed to consider the two critical conditions faced by an overwhelming majority of Indian teachers -- the multi-grade / multi-level (i.e. great variations in terms of age, background and experience of students within the same grade) situation in the classroom, and the inability of a substantial proportion of students to attend school regularly. In addition, curricula are often overloaded in terms of cognitive abilities (what is often defined as the ‘burden of non-comprehension’) as well as too much information. Officially, most curricula are intended to be transacted over 200-220 days, whereas what the teacher actually gets is between 100-150 working days, due to a variety of reasons related to ‘ground realities’. There is little scope for teachers to contribute to curriculum development, nor is any flexibility provided for. Worse,

4

most teachers have not even seen the curriculum document, and proceed on the assumption that the textbook is the curriculum.

At the time that DPEP became operational, a national level initiative to chart out the Minimum Levels of Learning (MLLs) was influencing curriculum development across the country. Supported by the Department of Education of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the advocates of MLLs emphasized that the children needed to master an identified set of competencies. These competencies were strictly classified and rigidly sequenced and numbered, with the child needing to master a prior competency before moving on to the next one. Evaluation was identified as crucial and it was desired that 80% children should master 80% of the identified competencies. This, it was asserted, would achieve equity and quality. The list of competencies, or the MLLs, thus came to be identified as the curriculum, rather than a list of competencies providing a framework for evaluation. There was, and often still is, a fair amount of confusion regarding the difference between the syllabus, curriculum and MLLs. In addition, it was considered sacrilege to deviate from the MLLs.

This had a number of undesired consequences. The whole teaching process came to be identified as an exercise in transacting specified competencies rather than a holistic interaction facilitating the overall development of the child. Identifying competencies by their number and placing them on the top or the bottom of the textbook page became issues that occupied undue time of teachers as well as curriculum developers. The linear sequence in the which the competency lists were written became the sequence of transaction as well as textbooks. Thus in some states the emerging textbooks for language learning focused for the first 10 pages or so on listening, for the next 10 pages on speaking, for the next 40 pages on reading/learning the alphabet and the last 20 or so on writing. This discreteness and linearity (often dubbed as a ‘scientific’ approach) led to great distortions in terms of teaching and learning in the classroom. However, the MLLs have acquired a sanctity, and the hold of this ‘movement’ is still evident in many Indian states.

In many DPEP states, however, efforts have been made to re-conceptualize the curriculum, keeping in mind the needs and circumstances of children and teachers. The MLLs are treated more as evaluation objectives rather than the curriculum. The intention is also to move towards a more contemporary understanding of subject areas (such as the teaching of language, mathematics and environmental studies). Linking with the Early Childhood Education, providing for integrated teaching of different subjects and greater flexibility to the teacher are becoming characteristics of the emerging curricula. This is now being backed by the NCERT as well.

PedagogyBy and large, learning in the classroom has consisted of children doing what they had been told to do -- mostly copying, reading aloud or memorizing -- when not listening to the teacher and looking at the blackboard. The relationship between children and the teacher has been one-way, hierarchical, and imbued with fear. Children are not allowed to relate with each other in the classroom, nor do they get to handle material other than the textbook and slate. ‘Disciplining’ the herd appears to be the teacher’s paramount concern. DPEP has made an effort to move away from this pedagogy of punishment towards an activity-based, learner-oriented pedagogy, wherein the child is encouraged to use her own mind in interesting, meaningful circumstances.

One difficulty has been in the area of ‘joyful’ learning. This term denotes both an approach as well as a program launched by many agencies (especially UNICEF) intended to release learning from its present teacher-centred and ‘chalk and talk’ approach. Many of these well-intentioned programs resulted in ‘joy without the learning’ or a set of random activities implemented in the

5

classroom with little rigor. The prevalence of this ‘song and dance’ notion of child-centeredness has presented its own set of problems and DPEP has been struggling towards more balanced, carefully planned learning strategies that would involve children, be more meaningful for them and also ensure learning.

Teaching and learning materials/textbooks/supplementary reading materialsThere has been a distinct absence of teaching and learning materials in the classroom. Where they do exist, more often than not they are used as demonstration material that children never really get to touch. DPEP has made provision for a small contingency grant for the teacher to buy what he needs. In addition to orienting teachers in the use of materials and this contingency grant, the focus is on using naturally available materials (such as stones, seeds, sticks, leaves) for learning purposes or materials that children and teachers can make themselves.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the textbook has a stranglehold over the education system and appears to be the single most responsible factor for giving children the impression that learning is dull, ‘serious’, and useless. DPEP is attempting to generate textbooks (along with teachers’ editions to act as guides for the teacher) that are not only more child-friendly, but also better produced while being more economical. These textbooks encourage children to learn actively, use materials from their environment, and occasionally even question the textbook itself.

EvaluationThis has usually been in terms of the dreaded examination system, where a three-hour performance can make or break a student. DPEP is attempting to move towards an ongoing rather than total reliance on periodic evaluation. There is an effort at moving away from allowing fear to be the basis of learning. It is also realized that a teacher is judging his own performance and using the outcomes of evaluation as a tool for planning ahead.

Program Evaluation has been a little utilized concept. DPEP has made efforts to implement such evaluation -- though it is not a better evolved feature of the program as yet, for reasons indicated later on in this document.

In-service Teacher TrainingLike the typical classroom, this has often consisted of authoritative lectures, delivered mostly by non-practitioners. Teacher training in DPEP has moved towards a more participatory, experiential/hands-on process, backed up in the field through the CRCs and the BRCs. One major challenge has been the number of teachers to be trained. Most DPEP states need to train over 20,000 teachers over a few months (e.g. between June and August 1999, Uttar Pradesh intends to hold an eight-day in-service program for nearly 53,000 teachers, spread over more than 200 centers). Often this is handled through the ‘cascade’ mode, where a group of key resource persons trains master trainers, who in turn train trainers, who train teachers. Apart from ‘transmission’ loss and distortions in teacher training, the cascade mode tends to discourage teachers’ initiative and limits the teacher to what is received from above. However, it has often been regarded as a necessary evil given the large numbers of teachers who have to be trained in such a short time. Ways in which states have attempted to make this method more effective of find alternatives will be discussed below. On-site professional development is also being initiated through the BRCs and CRCs.

Recognizing the need to orient supervisory staff both in new pedagogy as well as supportive supervision and management, some DPEP states have organized training programs for administrative and supervisory staff as well.

6

The process of emerging understanding

DPEP offers an interesting example of a program that started with fairly straightforward, ‘standard’ notions, and was soon compelled to adopt different measures as understanding grew. This process of understanding emerging can be seen in three phases: the first when things were done not too differently from before and there was no evidence of reform. The second, when a more pro-active approach was adopted but it was soon realized that all the areas that comprise quality improvement need to be worked on in tandem rather than in isolation. Three states will be discussed to portray this phase. The third phase consists of a promising strategy falling into place and taken to scale and adapted by other states. Given the diversity present in the 14 states participating in DPEP, a variety of strategies and practices have emerged related to quality improvement. It has become even more apparent that what is needed is not mere ‘improvement’ but real change, a renewal. There is a growing understanding of how quality improvement could really be brought about embodied in a holistic approach and the importance of adopting a variety of strategies.

Phase I, 1995-1996

The initial year of DPEP in operation (1995) focused on setting up management structures with quality improvement somewhat in the background. This was also coupled with the program leaders’ belief that tasks such as curriculum or textbook development or teacher training were best left to official state level bodies. It was only towards the end of 1995 that it was realized that what had been done in the name of quality improvement was not sufficiently addressing the issue of increase in quality. Teacher training programs devised by the SCERTs and implemented through the DIETs, were found to be following the traditional lecture method rather than making use of participatory or experiential approaches, and were far removed from the actual conditions in which teachers taught. On-site professional support was also absent since CRCs and BRCs had not yet become fully functional. In a few places where they had been established, CRC and BRC personnel were unclear about their roles in addition to being loaded with responsibilities other than that of pedagogical improvement. Newly developed textbooks, while becoming a little more colorful, were still dry, unattractive and overloaded. They failed to manifest emerging pedagogical understanding in various subject areas and continued to be child-unfriendly. Worse, they were still seen as the entire curriculum.

Phase II, 1996-1997

As concern for this situation grew, many states made intensive efforts to overcome these shortcomings. It was at this stage that they started going beyond the total dependence on state institutions and expanded their resource base to include resource persons, NGOs, the Technical Resource Group for DPEP and institutions outside their state. In other words, the mode of implementation began to move away from expert committees to empowered resource groups comprising practicing teachers, CRC-BRC personnel, trainers and resource persons/experts or even technical personnel from different backgrounds, levels and institutions. The efforts and experiences of three states in particular stand out from this phase, and are presented below -- with Assam and Karnataka highlighting teacher training and Kerala the textbook renewal processes.

7

Assam and KarnatakaAssam ‘re-invented’ the cascade model by including the ‘lateral movement’ of trainers between training centers to enhance resource utilization. As BRC-CRC personnel play a crucial role in the success of any training program, the state decided to move away from the usual procedure of nominating/deputing the senior most person for BRC-CRC posts. An innovative strategy was adopted to select the right personnel for BRCs and CRCs, involving short-listing through a series of interactions that demonstrated the skill of the person to provide on-site professional support. This step had an almost immediate impact at the field level, with a significant proportion of teachers attempting to make their classrooms more attractive and activity oriented. Teachers’ attempts at reform in classroom also demonstrated, at this point, a need for resource groups at district and state level to address the academic (more rigorous subject matter and pedagogical training) requirements of teachers as well as CRC-BRC personnel. This led the state to create District Academic Resource Groups and a State Academic Resource Group.

DPEP-Karnataka, after completing in-service training for thousands of teachers, discovered that its training programs were having no effect. Again, the in-service program had followed a traditional approach with lectures on a large number of topics with often irrelevant or incomprehensible information. This was the case even though the training module advocated ‘modern’ methods. Furthermore, the nature of interaction between the trainers and the trainees epitomized a hierarchical relationship with trainees being questioned rather than being enabled to question. Karnataka sought to correct this by first creating an SRG (State Resource Group) that participated in a ‘methods’ workshop. The workshop enabled participants to experience a participatory and experiential approach, to reflect and analyze their experience, and to apply what they had learned (for example by conducting a session using story-telling or an activity or a group discussion).

Over a period of nearly a year, this training development process resulted in a flexible training package comprising of the following four parts.

A. The Teachers’ Booklet: This booklet contained thematic papers on critical aspects related to an activity-oriented classroom and served as training material which the teachers could take away for reference. It also ensured that trainers are clearly aware of what was being sought to be communicated. The box below indicates the contents of this booklet (initial training programs of most DPEP states emerging from Phase I of 1995-96 emphasized broadly similar content).

THE ACTIVITY-BASED CLASSROOM

WHAT IS THE KIND OF CLASSROOM WE WANT TO SEE?Vision of an activity- based classroom (Atmosphere, Interaction and Relationships,

What the children are doing, What the teacher is doing)A tale of two classrooms

PRINCIPLES, ISSUES AND APPROACH

Assumptions: About children About nature of learning

Classroom situation of children and teachers

8

Difficulties of the teacher and children: ground realitiesFocusing on the reasonable and the practicable

Concept of activity

How do children learn?A note on methodsA note on materials

What an activity-based classroom is likeAtmosphereInteraction and RelationshipsWhat the children are doing /not doing

while participating in an activityWhat the teacher is doing

while conducting an activitygeneral teaching methodshandling materialmulti-grade / multi-level, multi-lingual teaching

Role of teacher

Language learning

Mathematics learning

Environmental studies learning

The MLLs -- what they actually are

Gender and other hidden curriculum issues

Evaluation in the classroom

B. The Trainer’s Booklet: This booklet contained detailed hints/practical advice and notes on what a participatory training program is and how it may be conducted. It was intended to enable trainers to be independent and continue their own growth as trainers, on their own.

THE PARTICIPATORY TRAINING PROGRAM

I. What is training?Vision of training: what a participatory training program will be like.A tale of two training programs.

EnvironmentRelationshipsWhat are the participants doing?What is the trainer doing?Basic principles.

Assumptions: About Teachers

9

II. WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THE TRAINERRole of trainer, extracted from case study of a training program.Difficulties of trainers

III. HOW CAN TRAINERS BE EFFECTIVE: or, detailed hints for trainers1. How to be an academic guide and how to communicate (using various training methods,

creating a conducive environment and relationships, keeping in mind the classroom situation of children and teachers).

2. How to plan, before and during the program (managerial, administrative and academic planning), using flexibility to address specific needs, evaluation and documentation.

3. How to manage/administer

4. How to write report/ record the training and assess the program

C. The Flexible Training Design that provides options and is adaptable to different circumstances. This must be used by trainers to construct their own design.

D. The Activity Bank containing activities/learning experiences that can be used by teachers and trainers -- and can keep growing with use.

This package addressed the ill-effects of the cascade mode in that it was not one package going down various levels, but was re-constructed at every level. In addition to generating a sense of ownership, the training package reflected flexibility in that it provided (i) a menu of options which trainers could choose from and then construct a design for themselves in accordance with requirements of trainees, which vary greatly even within one district; and, (ii) empowered the trainer to handle a training program as it unfolded; for instance, if a session or devise failed to work, he had options available.

As teacher training progressed in both Assam and Kerala, the necessity for a different curriculum, a different textbook and access to a wide range of teaching and learning material became evident. The impact of such ‘pressure’ is most evident in the story of DPEP interventions in Kerala, given below.

KeralaA small beginning: As in Assam and Karnataka, a different, more effective teacher training methodology was conceptualized and implemented. The outcome -- teachers commented on the training that it: “seems practical rather than theoretical but, if this is what activity-based pedagogy is all about, our teachers’ handbooks are all wrong. We need different handbooks.”

In going ahead with the development of a set of teachers’ handbooks as a result of this demand, DPEP Kerala created a State Resource Group (SRG) from among teachers, DIET and SCERT staff. Over a period of 4 months, a set of 13 ‘teacher-friendly’ handbooks was developed. The involvement of teachers in the creation of this material resulted in handbooks that actually reflected real classroom situations, that offered practical suggestions and were actually designed such that teachers could personalize these handbooks by filling in their own situations and suggestions, thus making them their own handbooks. When the handbooks reached teachers the response was -- “if our state can produce such handbooks, what are we doing stuck with such rotten textbooks!”

10

Curriculum development: It was thus that a massive textbook development endeavor was launched. However, this necessitated a change in the curriculum as well, for which permission was received from the state government. State-wide selection tests were conduced to identify potential team members from amongst practicing teachers, and the earlier State Resource Group (SRG) was substantially enlarged. New members were oriented in the overall pedagogy that had been agreed upon and a series of workshops discussed conceptual issues, assumptions and approaches. At the same time, through a variety of means and media, feedback was collected from teachers, members of the public, academics and opinion leaders. There was substantial support in favor of changing the existing curriculum and textbooks. The examination of the existing curriculum and the setting of parameters of what was feasible in the Kerala schools helped produce the new curriculum framework. Being undertaken at the time when the sanctity of the MLLs was at its highest, the Kerala process could not entirely move away from the existing MLLs which were in force in the state. However, as the box below would indicate, the list of the MLLs was indeed overhauled completely and subsumed in the process under way.

Developing the Curriculum -- steps followed by DPEP Kerala

1. Background and rationale identifying difficulties faced by children and teachers in the classroom, especially girls, poor

children, tribal children.... agreeing upon ‘what we want to see children and teachers doing/not doing in the classroom’ coming to a common set of beliefs and assumptions sharing concerns regarding the MLLs and their implementation drawing implications of the above understanding

2. Identifying what the curriculum should contain, by deciding the approach to each subject identifying, in keeping with the above, what each subject should include breaking the identified items broadly into grade-wise sections analyzing the existing MLLs in light of above exercises; each competency examined to see if

it was -- appropriate (and to be retained), too easy or irrelevant or not in keeping with the agreed upon approach (to be removed from the list), too difficult for children’s present level (to be deferred) or too discretely placed (to be clubbed with other competencies)

working on integration of learning objectives for grade 1 and 23. Putting together the document

analyzing the outcomes of the above exercise in terms of skills, concepts, information and attitudes (this was found to be a more ‘practicable’ classification) to ensure that the curriculum was not tilted towards information

identifying priorities from items identified for each grade sequencing the objectives, while ensuring sufficient provision for ‘spiraling’ calculating the time available to an average teacher and then deciding -- on basis of priorities

-- which learning objectives could be included in each grade preparing the draft curriculum document on basis of the above process

This process led to a curriculum document, the broad outline of which was as follows:

The KERALA Curriculum

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE1. Background National and state policy Conditions in the state’s schools

11

Factors that led to curriculum revision

2. The Curriculum Revision ProcessThe nature of the team selected and activities undertaken

3. Basic assumptions behind the new Curriculum The child and its learning process -- and implications Our understanding of the teacher -- and implications The value of education -- and implications

4. Basic Elements identified for curriculum formulation

5. Integrated Learning -- what and why

LEARNING OBJECTIVES1. Learning mother tongue Approach, how a child learns language

Listening-Speaking, Reading-Writing Creative Expression Script Teaching-learning methods to be used

Language Learning Objectives for Grades 3 & 4

2. Learning Environmental Studies Approach

What is Environmental Studies? How does a child learn from his surroundings? Aims of Environmental Studies How children learn in Environmental Studies How to help children learn in Environmental Studies

Environmental Studies objectives for Grades 3 & 4 in terms of individual and society food and health our world place and time natural resources and their conservation

3. Learning Mathematics Approach

The role of textbook Making mathematics learning less ‘difficult’

Mathematics learning objectives for Grades 3 & 4

4. Objectives for Integrated Learning, Grades 1 & 2

5. Arts - Sports - Work Experience Approach and Learning objectives, Grades 3 & 4

6. Time schedule for different subjects

RELATED ACTIVITIES1. Evaluation

2. Teacher Training

12

3. Monitoring People’s monitoring

Textbook development: Actual textbook development then followed. This included the orientation of writers, illustrators (and even the DTP operators and production personnel) in a variety of pedagogical and publication aspects, resulting in the development of outlines and frames for the books, development of guidelines and specifications for writing, editing, illustration, design and production. Over a period of around 10 months, new textbooks were developed for all subjects of classes 1-4 in three languages, along with teachers’ editions. Drafts of the emerging material were also ‘trialled’ with children in different parts of the state. One distinguishing feature was that books for classes 1 and 2 were integrated rather than subject-wise. The textbooks were cost-effective (an estimated 39% savings in production) and environment-friendly in that less paper was used. In addition, timely supply of the textbooks was ensured, by careful planning and logistics, and the involvement of local governance (panchayats).

Follow up: The books were launched in all DPEP districts in Kerala in mid-97. A major orientation of teachers was needed. Thus a 5-day training program was devised and all teachers in DPEP districts oriented by the SRG. And, when the new school year started, all teachers had had a preliminary orientation to the new curriculum and materials. This interaction also identified areas difficult for teachers such as the teaching of reading, integration of subjects and evaluation. Hence a system of pupil evaluation that would be in consonance with the overall pedagogy was evolved, tried out and consolidated, and included in the next orientation of teachers, which was held a few months after the preliminary exposure.

The fall-out: It can be said that the entire process was under close public scrutiny with newspapers, political lobbies, teachers groups and others regularly commenting both for and against what was happening. On occasions, state institutions such as the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs), despite having many members involved in the process, felt that the SRG was taking over their tasks. The government stood by what had emerged, and it was decided, after a year’s implementation in DPEP districts, to spread the outcomes to the whole state in mid-1998. Various political lobbies and teachers groups continue to resist, leading to a volatile situation in the state. The resisting groups questioned whether ‘children should be encouraged to think independently (they might stop listening to elders, you see)’, and ‘why should mathematics be made interesting (it is a serious subject, after all)?’ An intense public debate has been raging in the state over a year, and at present, it is difficult to say which way it will be settled. What can be said, at any rate, is that in a situation marked by public apathy toward the curriculum and pedagogy in schools, the very emergence of a public debate is a major achievement.

While the first teacher training program was externally evaluated, no full-scale evaluation has yet taken place. However, DPEP Kerala intends to undertake an evaluation in 1999 to assess the outcomes of this pedagogical renewal effort. Though this is impressionistic, by and large, the biggest achievement seems to be visible on the faces of children in DPEP schools, where they often work with the new textbooks on their own, even if the teacher is not present. And as they have understood the books, a large number of teachers is also beginning to enjoy teaching and feels that their children are actually learning.

13

Phase III, 1997-1998

Experiences such as those described above, and similar ones in other DPEP states, finally helped in the consolidation of a broader strategy. This strategy does not ‘replicate’ the Assam or Kerala or Karnataka experiences but draws upon them to enable a state to initiate pedagogical renewal efforts in keeping with its own circumstances. Broader strategies include the identification of key players, envisioning, field placement, conceptual discussions, textbook and teacher training development, and small-scale projects.

Identifying the key playersClearly there has been a shift away from the earlier dependence on state institutions to resource groups that comprise a variety of skilled individuals from various levels and backgrounds. The State Resource Group (SRG) is usually created by the team at the State Project Office. People are identified through their performance and involvement, as well as on the basis of their willingness to take on this fairly exacting challenge. It usually takes up to 6-8 months for an SRG to stabilize, as people are added and replaced on the basis of their performance or willingness. It is also assumed that there is no ready-made SRG, and a preliminary orientation and team building is necessary before significant results may be expected. Finally, it is expected that the varied backgrounds will allow for more equality in the group and the commonality of the goal will ensure much needed team work. This is often reflected in division of responsibility within a group, with a competent teacher or a CRC Coordinator (who has proved herself/himself) often taking leadership or initiative in small groups that include ‘senior’ members.

An effort is made to involve the following: representatives of key government institutions at the state and district levels such as

the State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs), Textbook Boards, and District Institutes of Education;

resource members from universities, NGOs and other institutions, or specifically talented individuals (e.g. writers) or competent professionals (e.g. illustrators, DTP operators);

trainers from district, block and cluster levels; those representing ‘other’ areas such as gender or alternative schooling coordinators are also often closely involved;

teachers, who often comprise a large proportion of any group and, given the large number from which a choice needs to be made, are often identified through objective procedures such as selection tests, keeping in mind geographical and gender representations;

though not very common, efforts are also made to involve supervisory personnel; this is usually not easy as other responsibilities do not allow them to be spared for long periods; and

occasionally, members of public or community representatives might be involved (this has happened only in Kerala).

VisioningWhile the planning process in DPEP often involved participants dealing with facts and figures, and setting quantitative targets, it was never very clear what it was that they desired to see at the end of their endeavors. This had serious consequences especially in the case of personnel involved in quality improvement aspects, for their work was intended to result in a better school. Unfortunately, they had never been encouraged to visualise what this better school would be like. It was as a result of this realization that Visioning Workshops were devised, and came to form the very first step in the orientation of all SRG members engaged in renewal efforts. Over a

14

period of three to four days, the Visioning Workshop enabled participants to experience a learner-oriented situation for themselves, evolve a felt understanding of activity-oriented pedagogy and address the following issues:

What are the difficulties faced by children and teachers in the classroom today? What kind of changes would we like to see in areas such as curriculum/materials,

teaching practices, teacher training, evaluation, supervision and teacher support? If these changes actually come about, what are likely to see and hear in our ‘new’

school? (This is the ‘vision’ and an example of this is given at the end of this section.) What are the difficulties we are likely to face in attempting to bring about these

changes? Keeping in mind the vision, the changes desired and the difficulties anticipated, what

are the steps that need to be taken?

It is the consolidated outcome of the issues listed above that formed the ‘vision’ document of the SRG. One major consequence of this experience is that not only do the participants create their own goals, they also create a cause that they emotionally identify with and wish to work towards.

DPEP - BiharOur Vision

This is what you might see or hear if you visited the kind of school BEP would like to create: Children can be seen working on their own on different tasks. At places they are in groups, at places

alone; here inside the classroom, there outside it. It is perhaps this that makes it difficult to find out which class is where.

Children can be heard asking questions from the teacher when they need to, unafraid. Bits of laughter and noise float in. Among the words you can make out children are saying to each other: “Let’s find out” or “Come on, why don’t you say....” or “What fun!” And when the teacher needs to go out, the class still ‘carries on’.

Look for the teacher and you’ll find him surrounded by children, or playing with them. If the children ‘get the better’ of the teacher, he says: “Well done!” Often, the teacher asks children: “What shall we do today?” Of course, he can also be heard saying: “I don’t know, why don’t you find out?”

And, looking at children ‘studying’ like this, Rajvatiya and Ramu, who don’t come to school, tug at the teacher’s hand and say: “Martsa’ab (master-sahab), we want to play too.”

Visioning workshops have been conducted in a number of states, along with a national level orientation for state teams wanting to carry this exercise further. Some states, such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have carried Visioning exercises down to the block level, with each group creating its own ‘vision’; other states such as Haryana and Gujarat have incorporated Visioning as part of the normal teacher training. Wherever the Visioning exercise has been effectively conducted (e.g. in a large number of blocks/districts in Bihar, UP or Karnataka) feedback indicates that there is a feeling of a ‘breakthrough’ having been made, a demand generated for further such interactions, a greater sense of bonding among all participants, and a sense of ownership. Creating a mental model of the school being envisioned is seen as important across many DPEP states.

Field placementEspecially for the senior members of the SRG (who are often faculty members of the SCERT or DIETs), the typical school is little more than a mental construct that they have not physically visited for years, let alone taught in. For this reason, it was felt that SRG members and trainers who have not been primary school teachers, should be placed as school teachers in difficult

15

primary schools for a few weeks in order that they might experience what it is to be a teacher, the difficulties faced, expectations that are reasonable from teachers and also the potential to be creative and innovative within the limiting circumstances. The exercise -- undertaken by SRGs and trainers in states such Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh -- has often resulted in totally transforming participants. They not only come to respect teachers more and appreciate their situation, but are also able to advocate with greater confidence teaching practices they have actually been able to implement.

Conceptual discussionsAs SRG members start working they often discover that though they all seem to have the same intentions, what each understands by various important terms or the assumptions each holds may well be different from the other. Through a set of two workshops, conceptual discussions then focus on the following to enable a common frame of reference to evolve:

1. Beliefs and assumptions about The child The teacher The learning process The ‘why’ of education Equity issues

2. Approaches to the teaching of Language Mathematics Environmental Studies

The implications of the above are then examined for the development of : curriculum and materials, classroom practices, learning assessment, teacher training and support. Thus a set of mutually agreed upon principles and academic guidelines emerge -- to be followed in all activities related to quality improvement, thus ensuring a minimum underlying commonality.

Conceptual workshops have been held in states such as Gujarat, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, and Haryana. In all these states the outcomes -- in the form of base documents (capturing beliefs/assumptions and approaches) as well as implication documents -- have played a critical role in the development of core inputs such as curriculum documents, textbooks, teacher training and evaluation. This is because these workshops provide a frame of reference against which present inputs may be reviewed, as well as guidelines against which future ones may be developed. In many instances (such as in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat) these documents have been converted into training material for teachers and utilized during in-service training programs. In states such as Kerala, Assam, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, they have been incorporated as prefatory material providing the basis for curricular objectives, and/or as material in teachers’ handbooks explaining exactly why textbooks/lessons are the way they are.

Textbook developmentMany states have made great effort to make their textbooks more child-friendly, encouraging flexibility and creativity, and supporting teachers in conducting activity-oriented classrooms. Thus textbooks are coming to be means rather than the end of learning, which is a fairly encouraging sign. They have moved away from being sacred repositories of information to being stimulating material designed to encourage children to use their minds. However, it cannot be said that this is happening very smoothly and a great deal of ground level effort is required before states can convince teachers that textbooks are not, after all, sacrosanct.

16

New textbooks have been produced by most states. However, it can be seen that the Kerala textbook development process has influenced the processes in Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Assam and Uttar Pradesh. The steps followed in these states include the following:

Identification and orientation of textbook development team (roughly 60% of the overall group comprising of practicing primary teachers selected through state-wide tests)

Compilation of a resource center containing useful material from different sources Occasionally, a review of production practices to draw implications for production

related decisions -- such as page size, book volume and print runs -- that have a bearing on the development process

Pre-writing workshops for orientation of team members, exposure to resource material, understanding the curriculum in transactional terms, examining the role of textbook in the classroom, development of guidelines for writing, editing, design, illustration and production

Development of frames for the book(s), outlines for lessons along with treatment and identification of visual elements

Development of sample lessons, and trialling them with children (this may also be an ongoing process)

Writing Editing Design and illustration Preparation of Camera Ready Copies Development of an feasible implementation plan whereby textbooks would be

introduced in schools, teachers’ oriented and supported, feedback obtained and revision undertaken.

Many of these steps take place concurrently and require coordination among the various agencies involved. The greatest difficulty lies in the area of design, illustration and production as many state bodies are unwilling to establish in-house DTP facilities, and designers / illustrators are hard to come by in most states. Production presents its own difficulties, with printers’ lobbies often obstructing the introduction of more economical and efficient production practices.

Teacher training developmentBy and large, DPEP has not intervened in pre-service training, as that has not really been in its purview. In the initial phase, most states concentrated on in-service training related to the MLLs or carrying on with general training programs conceptualized by the NCERT at the national level. The shift then came when the states moved towards training in classroom processes and pedagogy, following it up with orientation on new curriculum and materials as they emerged. Where such inputs have already been made, training is now likely to focus on aspects such as evaluation and action research. However, it must also be mentioned that except Uttar Pradesh (a late entrant) no other state has had a perspective plan for teacher training, with each year’s inputs addressing what seemed important at the moment. By now, though, it has become more possible to anticipate training needs. The involvement of the CRCs and the BRCs in follow-up and ongoing training and support is also increasing, though it cannot be said to be happening very systematically.

A typical training development process would go through a series of steps (many of them running concurrently) that result in finding / developing answers to questions such as the following:

17

1. Developing a new program reviewing the present training program identifying what teachers now need from their training identifying/developing training methods/devices in light of teachers’ needs developing materials/banks of activities/learning experiences developing a design for the training program identifying the needs of trainers in order to conduct such a program developing the training of trainers

2. Implementing the training program trialling the emerging training package preparing the key resource persons who would train trainers developing a training plan to implement the program across the state identifying the role of various institutions involved developing mechanisms for trainer support while the training program is

being implemented3. Preparing the training institutions

identifying expectations from the institutions involved assessing their present status and capacity building needs agreeing on the inter-relationships and coordination needed across these

institutions4. Follow up after the training program

identifying ongoing requirements of teachers after the training program identifying role of monthly meetings, discussion papers and field visits at

cluster level identifying the nature of academic support needed from district and block

level for the purpose, and developing academic resource groups working out a rapid response system to address emerging needs using the outcome of follow up to identify training needs from the next year’s

training program5. Evaluating the training program

identifying the nature of evaluation needed for the training program identifying methods for this kind of evaluation and agencies that could be

involved agreeing upon the time span within which evaluation is to take place deciding who would use the information emerging from this evaluation, how

and for what purpose agreeing upon ways in which it would be ensured that the findings of

evaluation are actually incorporated in emerging training programs on an ongoing basis.

Though such a frame-work for developing a training program has now come to exist, it is not necessarily put into practice with similar elegance. This is because the state teams’ capacities are still being built, while institutional inertia is only gradually being overcome.

Small-scale projectsWhile the project frame allows very little time for research and trialling, it is also necessary for states to address problems by sustained trialling at a smaller scale before large-scale implementation. This has resulted in states such as Assam taking up a project cluster where the effort is to work intensively towards creating the kind of schools that have been ‘envisioned’, document successful practices and disseminate them. It is also useful in that the ‘new’ is

18

something that has often been discussed but has never been seen. Working models in the form of a project cluster provide credibility as well as local models for change. Similarly, DPEP-Gujarat has launched a pilot project in 50 schools to address the problem of multi-grade classrooms by trying out a variety of strategies before deciding which ones to advocate in their large-scale training programs.

A note on EvaluationAll states had undertaken Baseline Learner Achievement Studies prior to the operationalization of DPEP and this is followed up through Mid-term Assessment. A cross-state Mid-term Assessment (on aspects such as teacher training) has been undertaken by the DPEP-Bureau, the national coordination body in the Government of India. States such as Kerala, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have arranged for external assessment / studies/ evaluation of specific aspects of their program. A sample monitoring program funded by the EC (European Commission) is operational in three states (Assam, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh). The DFID (Department for International Development, UK) has supported the development of evaluation as an ongoing function in Andhra Pradesh. Kerala has sent several Internal Academic Review Missions (comprising SRG members with clear Terms of Reference and strong orientation) for detailed assessment of quality aspects at grassroots levels, which is then followed by workshops at the state level to share the outcomes and evolve future strategies jointly.

It would appear that in a large-scale program such as this, evaluation would be a fairly developed function and the information provided above might indicate a degree of awareness of this aspect. However, evaluation is often affected by the fact that it is implemented more to fulfill conditionalities (as part of agreements made with funding agencies) rather than as a component integral to the growth of the program. The objectivity of many evaluation studies too can be questioned, as they are occasionally affected by the drive to ‘put one’s best foot forward’ (a major exception to this are Kerala’s Internal Academic Review Missions, which are ruthlessly honest).

While evaluation studies itself forms a still-new academic area in India, the complexities presented by ground realities also do not make evaluation an easy task. Generalizations (termed ‘conclusions’ in various evaluation studies) are fraught with the danger of oversimplification, and are often either plain wrong or highlight what is already very well known. The credibility of the whole enterprise tends to suffer as a result, and many authorities are unwilling to give any credence or space to outcomes of evaluations.

Finally, evaluation is often deferred in favor of implementation. As various teams make inputs they are aware, almost on a daily basis, of how little change has actually come about and feel that they would not benefit from utilizing time for evaluation when they ‘already know how bad it is’ and would do better to work on corrective measures. This is also compounded by the fact that in some states leaders (such as State Project Directors) and team members change far too rapidly, with the consequence that each leader/team prefers first to implement its own version of inputs before proceeding with evaluation.

LESSONS LEARNED

It may appear too presumptuous to ‘jump’ so early to lessons learned from DPEP experiences. While a mid-term review has been undertaken through a number of surveys (including that of learning achievement) and studies (including classroom observation), it remains to be seen how

19

sustainable DPEP’s efforts are. In many instances, ‘lessons’ learned are merely an elaboration of the pros and the cons, without it necessarily being clear which is better.

Institutional involvement and emphasis on capacity buildingThe lack of success encountered by DPEP in involving institutions suggests both a general unwillingness in institutions to change and/or improve and ineffective strategies or lack of will on DPEP’s part to facilitate such involvement. This is a significant weakness since DPEP projects are often limited to five to six years, thus allowing little time for institutions to overcome their inertia. By and large, institutions are unable to adapt to a ‘mission’ mode -- that is, time-bound outcomes, accountability and flexibility. Clearly, there is a need to create and utilize alternatives such as the State Resource Groups since there is not enough time to change institutional culture. Such groups can pressure institutions to initiate self-development. However, this situation can produce conflict and resistance -- institutions are not always benign and fight tooth and nail to preserve both their mediocrity and their power. It is important to be able to understand the nature of resistance from such institutions. In the long term, project directors will have to consider appropriate strategies for enabling institutional culture to change, including ways in which it can integrate the expertise and skill generated by DPEP.

A crucial, and as yet unresolved, issue in the present scenario therefore is: how is the pedagogical renewal effort to be sustained? This has become complicated because no means have yet been found of institutionalizing breakthroughs made in DPEP on various fronts. At the national level, too, there remain gaps between the elementary education system and DPEP. While it is clear that DPEP will exit, its exit strategy is not yet clear. It has been possible for facilitating resource persons to work out an exit strategy whereby the SRG members take over more and more responsibilities as their capacities grow. However, it does not seem to have been possible for the program itself to identify any clear exit strategies. At present, the unarticulated hope appears to be that even if institutions do not carry these initiatives forward, the large number of resource group members who have emerged at various levels would perhaps carry on in their own area of influence, the continuity thus coming from teams rather than leaders or institutions.

Holistic approachThe change process demands a holistic approach. It is not enough to tinker with what exists, but to re-think it through and through. As the experience of many states indicated, it is not enough to work on altering only one aspect of the system such as teacher training. Teacher training required curricula and textbook reformulation which in turn compelled attention on evaluation and teacher support. Unless all aspects that form a full chain are addressed, change will not really take root. The dilemma is that it is often not possible to undertake change in many areas at the same time. However, it needs to be re-emphasized that any successful intervention in one aspect is likely to generate a demand for similar action in other aspects as well, in a ‘cascading’ effect that can perhaps even be predicted and planned for.

Teacher training and curriculum developmentTeachers need to be trained in the model of change that is to be expected in teaching and learning. Earlier models trained teachers using the traditional methodology of lecturing which resulted in teachers being unable to translate the new model into the classroom of activity-based learning, never having experienced it themselves. The communication of information and interaction between teacher trainer and teacher has to be similar to or approximate what is expected between a teacher and a student. With reference to curriculum development, time and energy spent on the Visioning process and conceptual discussions led to clarity and meaningfulness in defining the actual curriculum. In other words, had these processes not taken

20

place it is likely that the traditional curriculum would have just been ‘tinkered with’ rather than transformed.

Creation of grassroots academic support structuresBRCs and CRCs form the key support structures in DPEP. While they have been established by now in most DPEP states, their functioning varies greatly across the states. Often this is due to a lack of role clarity, with these centers being as much administrative and management structures as academic ones. While decentralization is desirable, there has to be clarity on what is expected of structures at local and central levels. Due to this lack of clarity too much work is often expected of the BRCs and CRCs. In addition the BRCs and CRCs tend to focus on management issues rather than the professional development of the teacher. The challenge now is to enable these structures to overcome ritualized interaction and move towards a more lively and self-sustained process of investigating how they can provide good on-site support of teachers in the areas of subject matter and pedagogy.

Finally, the hungry monsterFinally, real problems seem to start when teachers actually try teaching better and implement such new pedagogy as they have acquired. For a situation such as this generates in them a hunger to know more. This ‘hungry monster’ -- thousands and thousands of field personnel with enthusiastic commitment -- needs constantly to be ‘fed’, a task which the groaning structures of any large-scale educational program find very difficult to perform. However, it is this that would decide whether the achievements of the program are only transitory, or actually there to stay.

Subir Shukla

Note1. This document largely describes processes that I have facilitated or participated in. This by no

means implies that there are no other ‘schools’ or ‘approaches’ in DPEP, nor can any document of this size claim to capture DPEP in its ‘totality’.

2. The needs of ‘objectivity’ and space have constrained me to exclude sharing in this document the passion and extraordinary commitment of all participants -- from teachers to state project directors -- that have actually scripted such successes DPEP might have had.

3. I am gratelful to Prema Clarke, Venita Kaul and other team members at the World Bank for their unfailingly helpful comments.

Subir ShuklaIII/108 Kirti Apts, 16 Mayur Vihar Phase I Extn., Delhi 110 091, INDIA

Ph: 91-011-2717204 E-mail: primary@del3.vsnl.net.in

21