Posts Tagged ‘teaching’


September 22nd, 2009

Education reforms – adding to or reducing anxiety?

For most people “change” is an alarming concept. It signifies the end of continuity or familiarity, the start of a journey into the unknown. If change is difficult for adults then it probably has a magnified impact on children who carry the baggage of their own expectations, in addition to the baggage of expectations and insecurities of their elders – so unreasonably thrust upon their tender shoulders. I can see how changes to the education system can result in feelings of fear and anxiety in children and in everyone who are stakeholders in their journey into the real world. After all, India’s education system has virtually not changed for decades and students have mastered the “Art of Performance” through rote learning and teachers the “Art of Delivery” through chalk and talk. Marks in high 90’s are common practice and is symptomatic of how the system has been mastered. Thus, there is bound to be resistance towards any significant changes to this system.

Over the last few weeks, I have been reading with keen interest the various aspects of Mr. Kapil Sibal’s proposed reforms to the Indian education system, including the abolition of the Class X external exam, assessment & grading system,  and his proposal to introduce an all India exam for admission into the science stream; amongst other things. While most of us would agree that the system needs review and revamp and it is high time a well thought-out action plan was implemented to weed out the malaise that infects the K-10/K-12 system, there is significant resistance to the changes from almost all quarters. I have also had the opportunity of speaking with a number of principals, who too, are not enthusiastic about the changes proposed by Mr. Sibal. Why is it that we are resisting? Some of the objections that I have read or heard are akin to clutching to the last straws and do not withstand any degree of scrutiny.

Evaluating the arguments, it seems to me that the resistance is not against the changes, but against the lack of insight into how the proposed reforms will be implemented and more importantly, how the system will work post reforms. Change, in any context, needs to be undertaken with great sensitivity; and in most successful implementations significant time, effort and money is expended to educate the affected stakeholders on their standing and understanding of the new system. Buy-in from the main stakeholders is a prerequisite for achieving any significant degree of success.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kapil Sibal’s has not articulated his vision of what the system will look like once he has implemented his full range of proposals/ initiatives. Nor has he provided an insight into how the individual components of reforms fit into this vision. To assuage the fears of the parents, teachers, administrators and students, Mr. Sibal should start communicating with the nation on what his proposed changes will mean for them, instead of their receiving piecemeal information in the form of selected passages provided by the media.

Mr. Sibal and his band of Merry Men in the education ministry, should also reach out to as many principals and education professionals by holding discussions and by articulating the many benefits they see from the reforms and by addressing common concerns.

It seems to me, that the changes proposed by Mr. Sibal are well intentioned and if implemented well, could result in a significant improvement in the teaching learning practices adopted in our schools. However, I am concerned that the implementation process is not robust and significant areas still need to be addressed before we can be made comfortable with Mr. Sibal’s vision. At the moment, Mr. Sibal is adding more stress to the lives of the children and parents instead of his claim of trying to reduce it. My suggestion to him would be to defer the implementation of making 10th class exams optional from academic year 2010-11 to say academic year 2014-15. This would give schools, administrators and regulators adequate opportunity to implement a holistic model and to cater to the needs of the new reality and to address its shortcomings.

Change cannot merely be brought about by a mere sound bite or stroke of a pen; it needs to be understood before it can be embraced.

August 31st, 2009

Teachers are not what they used to be!

Over the last few weeks I have had the privilege of speaking with a few heads of school. I have known some of them from the time they were teachers and who have progressed from being teachers to becoming heads of the school on the basis of their dedication, hard-work and competence. While discussing education with them, especially on the quality of teaching in schools and the need for teacher training, one important point was thrust forward repeatedly; “Teachers are not what they used to be!”

Based on these conversations it seems that:

* Our expectation of professionalism from educators has deteriorated, reflective of an overall deterioration of standards of professionalism in the society. Most of us are happy with mediocrity in the garb of excellence, we have grown in quantity largely at the expense of quality; be it doctors, defence officers, engineers, domestic help,. Genuine quality control and monitoring mechanisms are few,if not non-existent. For example, if you have recently travelled to cities around Delhi (in Haryana or UP), the landscape is dotted with hoardings of Management, Engineering and Educational Institutes. Generally speaking, the density of these institutes far outnumbers the density of population in the area. Most of these institutes are ignorant about or don’t seem to be interested in maintaining any standards of quality.Short-sighted regulatory bodies are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the curricula and its delivery in these institutes.

* Salary is another oft-quoted reason for deterioration in quality of teachers. The school management invests an absurd amount of money into the physical appearance of the school. However, when it comes to their most important resource, i.e. teachers, they hardball salary downwards like a petty trader. In market driven economies of today, and like in any other occupation, money is a key motivator. If compensation is not adequate then the teaching staff will look for alternative means (like tuitions) to supplement their income which takes their focus away from school work or will look at alternative opportunities with other schools. Loyalty, commitment and professionalism, key pillars of development and progress, are the biggest casualties.

As Lord James Goldsmith very aptly said, “If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys to work!”

* Teaching is an art as well as a science. Our pre-service teacher training programmes are redundant to a large extent. I have had the privilege of doing my pre-service training in India as well as Canada. Both have course content dealing with educational philosophies and psychology butthe Indian BEd stops short of putting educational theory to practice and the trial and error one has to indulge in to operationalise theory is at the cost of students’ learning. The BEd programme in Canada, empowered me to design curriculum, teaching and assessment and other pedagogical practices with philosophical and psychological underpinnings.

In-service training, something that at in the not too distant past, used excite schools is now perceived sceptically largely because the trainers have failed to make training relevant and long lasting for teachers. Teachers and administrators find that most in-service teaching programmes do not help bridge the gap between theory and practice and the half-baked concepts covered are therefore difficult to adapt to the classroom setting.

* A majority of our schools have either very inefficient or no work systems and processes in place. In this day and age of working smart and not just hard, most of our schools continue to function as they did decades ago. Schools seem to be caught in an outdated time capsule reluctant to keep pace with the 21st century.There has been a mountain of educational research in these two decades but it seems to have bypassed a vast number of our schools. Given these inefficient tools/systems to work with, no wonder teachers are doing an inefficient job.

* Lastly, and most importantly, teachers are reluctant to improve and empower themselves. Generally speaking, they are not interested in polishing their tools and learn new ones in order to keep themselves abreast with modern teaching-learning processes. They seem to have become cynical and rigid to the detriment to the system within which they work. They are largely intolerant and ignorant of technology and instead of using it as an ally, they perceive it as a threat .They seem to have brought to life Oscar Wilde’s words, Everybody who is incapable of learning has taken to teaching”.

There can be a million reasons for not adopting pedagogically sound practices, but there is only one reason to adopt them and that is to maximise the learning of your students. Teachers, isn’t that your mandate and raison d’être?

June 15th, 2009

Commonsense in Curriculum

Curriculum is the driving force of a school and can be loosely defined as the framework within which the teaching learning in a school is designed. In that sense, it is the most crucial operational document and yet the schools have the least say in its creation. This document which, in sanctity, is treated next only to the country’s constitution and holy text, is designed by Curriculum Committees largely composed of bureaucrats, scholars and academicians, with few, if any representing the schools. Most of these people have a very sound understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of learning and pedagogy but are clueless about the dynamics of a classroom. A few are also politically motivated with no interest in education and learning but see curriculum as means for scoring political mileage.

curriculum-creyons

Curriculum committees have served their purpose in the past but today its confining, cumbersome and insular style of working is hindering and retarding the process of curriculum design. Yet they have the mandate of creating information that inform school/classroom decisions. Curriculum committees in their current form are redundant and are on the verge of extinction unless they refocus their purpose and modus operandi.

At a time when elementary curriculum is becoming more and more transdisciplinary, Indian curriculum creators in their bid to pay obeisance to the sanctity of disciplines with utter disregard to principles of understanding and working of the brain, like it compartmentalised and departmentalised. Although a beginning has been made in the form of National Curriculum Framework (NCF)-2005, we are yet to make our elementary curriculum interdisciplinary! In some cases the curriculum fails to align vertically and horizontally making it imbalanced, repetitive or incomplete, a problem acknowledged by the makers of the NCF-2005. Most of these committees base their work on national calendar and not on school calendar that actually determines the goings on in a school.

In many countries curriculum committees are, slowly but surely, being replaced by curriculum mapping, a concept that owes its origin to work undertaken by Fenwick English is rooted in commonsense practices. Curriculum mapping provides for increasing inclusion of teachers in decision-making roles making the exercise more meaningful and data more accessible for the purpose of analysis, sorting and communicating; and also been acknowledged in the NCF-2005. This ensures better articulation of the curriculum to all stakeholders and its integration by making natural intersecting points more visible; ensuring realistic and meaningful understanding by the learners. Curriculum mapping provides for best developmental placement of concept and skills within and across the grades, especially in the elementary grades.

June 1st, 2009

Differentiated instruction – Redefining teaching and learning

As a parent of a 3-year old son who is an articulate communicator and natural inquirer, I am currently facing a dilemma. If I put on my educationist lenses to view the issue, the dilemma assumes very serious proportions.

My son, who will turn three in a fortnight, goes to a preschool where kids are organised by age grouping with March 31 (DoB) as the date cut-off for determining the age grouping – a logic that pervades enrolment procedure for subsequent grades as well. Since he was under the age of 3 on the cut-off date, technically he will continue to be in the 2-3 years grouping even after June (when he becomes over 3 years of age). There is a huge developmental gap between a 2 year old and a 3 year old. 

It is not that this problem has just dawned on me; it was a concern I had expressed at the time of enrolment, but my mind was put at ease by assurances of differentiated learning within the same class. From training and experience, I understand the implications and benefits of differentiated learning so I decided to be patient and see how differently he and similar children in the grade would be taught. But now patience is running out as I haven’t seen much of the differentiated instruction in action during the past 2 months that he has been going to school. 

My dilemma stems from the fact that I do understand the working of schools and the issue of teacher training in differentiated instruction and assessment in schools, but how do I reconcile that as a parent of an ever-eager-to-learn soon-to-be-three-year-old.   

As I search for sorting the dilemma, I ask myself, using the powerful words of Karen Morrow Durica

Is it truly easier for all to sit and learn?

Should 8-years old all share the same ability and concern?

Does everyone learn better when there is silence in the room?

Do 50-min periods give all the time to bloom?

Is the only way to learn about geometry from a book?

Are having 5 neat paragraphs how each essay should look?

Does every brain work at its best at 7:45 am?

Do practice tests for seven weeks make everyone thrive?

Does every learner need a break at exactly the same time?

Are projects better if each one must have the same design?

Does only certain literature make someone a better reader?

Do only sports, or math, or speech make someone a leader?

Can everyone show what is known by way of written tests?

Does giving “points” inspire everyone to do their best?

Does compliance to school rules define a better student?

Is it possible the misfits are as able, bright and prudent?

Appears if we look closely at the structures we embrace-

Creating hardship for some students, making school a hampered place:

We’d understand that many problems seem to be our fault-

How we do school is often for the convenience of the adults.

If teaching were as simple as using the one best way to teach everyone, “one size fits all” kind of approach,  it would be considered more of a science. However, there isn’t just one best way to teach everyone and that’s why teaching is an art.

May 19th, 2009

Inquiry process in classrooms

The inquiry approach to teaching-learning is departure from the traditional teacher-directed strategies. Once a teacher gets somewhat comfortable with the process, the next battle for her in the classroom is how to structure it into an effective teaching-learning strategy.

While questioning and searching for answers are extremely important parts of inquiry, effectively generating knowledge from this questioning and searching is greatly aided by a conceptual context for learning. To facilitate the inquiry process, teachers/schools adopt the inquiry cycle and the students’ go through the different stages of creating and refining their inquiries with the teacher’s help. The process might end up in the creation of a product or the construction of an understanding. This process of product making or answer building is an iterative process which goes through verification, validation, sifting and sorting till a clear picture emerges. In this journey of constructing meaning, a child works on his own or with a small group of peers necessitating social and communication skills. The teacher provides the appropriate resources and provocation, structuring the activities to support the inquiries.

One of the schools that I work with has developed and adopted the following Inquiry Cycle for their elementary students:

 inquiry-based-learning

The inquiry approach to learning is complex and dynamic; it looks different in different classrooms. As the process unfolds, it is rarely linear but cyclic or back and forth, very much in sync with the way the brain functions. Therefore, it has been called “a human approach to knowledge acquisition”.

Suffice to conclude in the words of Gordon Wells, “Inquiry is not a ‘method’ of doing science, history, or any other subject, in which the obligatory first stage in a fixed, linear sequence,… is that of students each formulating questions to investigate. Rather, it is an approach to the chosen themes and topics in which the posing of real questions is positively encouraged, whenever they occur and by whoever they are asked. Equally important as the hallmark of an inquiry approach is that all tentative answers are taken seriously and are investigated as rigorously as the circumstances permit.”