Detention For Adults?

To all those who are convinced that the non-detention policy is harming education…

Children’s apparent lack of learning becomes an issue mainly because it is easy to see that they have missed out on something. The fact that at a younger age learning is very fast and that clear milestones are available helps us perceive this – and therefore apply all kinds of expectations, tactics, at times even coercion to ‘ensure’ learning – one such being the detention system which, many believe, is needed in order to maintain ‘quality’. By making children lose a year because we couldn’t ensure their learning (and blaming them for it), we feel we can generate the fear required to make them ‘serious’ and learn.

If we are convinced about this, why should it apply only to school education? What if we could lay out clear benchmarks for adults to learn and grow – in general as well as in the work they do. Certainly it is possible to have a life-long ‘curriculum’ with two-year benchmarks (over their entire careers, and even post retirement) for educationists and curriculum developers, teachers, HMs, government officials, managers, businessmen, fathers and mothers (and grandparents), journalists, artists, municipal staff, auditors, accountants, administrators, intelligence agents and politicians. What if there was a ‘detention system’ (in terms of not being allowed to be promoted or get a pay increase or being sent back to some lower ‘grade’)? Yes, in some government jobs there is an ‘efficiency bar’ and the supposed HR policies and internal competition are expected to sort this out. But do they?

Can we as a nation claim that we have, every year, demonstrated the improvement required to declare ourselves ‘promoted’ to the next level (whatever that is)?

And what happens when police are unable to reduce crimes, leaders are unable to ensure the welfare of the poor, systems are unable to deliver basics such as electricity / water / education / health, or societies are unable to get men to have basic respect for women?

Who should be ‘detained’?

Why Measuring Learning Outcomes Does Not Improve Accountability in Education – Or Outcomes

In the last few years, the clamour for measuring learning outcomes and using that as a means to ensure accountability has grown louder. In fact the current Five Year Plan insists that learning outcomes be measurable and be measured. Corporate houses funding various foundations and NGOs are big on learning assessment and look to it as a means of bringing about improvement. Many sensible people are voicing views to the effect that if a teacher is unable to generate learning outcomes, he should be shoved aside and replaced by someone better. And, of course, the feeling persists that we are not measuring the quality of learning enough.

This is unfortunate. Not because measuring outcomes is not important or somehow wrong but because the present formulations of the issue are simplistic to the extent that they prevent underlying issues to be addressed. Here is how.

First, it is not as if the quality of learning is not being measured, or has not been measured in the last 20 years. The first all-India survey of learning levels was conducted by the NCERT in 1995, and there have been many since. Several large-scale independent studies of students’ learning levels have been run, including ASER and surveys of Education Initiatives. Small-scale learning assessments have been conducted for innumerable research studies (e.g. of 1 lakh children in Tamil Nadu to assess the state’s Activity Based Learning Programme) or pilot projects (for instance, several states have piloted their textbooks and used learning achievement as a benchmark). And of course at least hundreds (if not thousands) of NGOs/NGO-run programmes (often in government schools) have incorporated assessment as an effectiveness measure.

There are thus any number of assessments available – and they've been telling us for the last twenty years that our children are not learning. Only, this doesn’t seem to have resulted in improved learning, thus questioning the assumption behind the clamour for measurement.

This is a little like weighing a child to assess the level of nutrition – unfortunately, merely weighing the child will not lead to better nutrition... Something else is clearly required, and that doesn’t seem to be happening.

Second, insisting on having 'measurable' outcomes is hugely misleading – just because you can measure something doesn't make it more worthwhile (e.g. we do want students to be creative or considerate or civic though there are no easy measures for these). Several of the assessments mentioned suffer from this. Thus an Adivasi child who displays great resourcefulness, knowledge of the environment and concern for others would be called poorly educated since the ‘tests’ measure only basic literacy and numeracy.

Measuring outcomes would be useful only when we measure what matters most to us. Not whether a child can read something aloud but whether he can form an opinion on it and give the reasons behind them. Not whether a child can do calculations but whether she can apply it in real world contexts to solve problems or take a decision. Some of these may be hard to measure, but it would be useful to remember that it is not the purpose of education to be assessable, but the purpose of assessment to measure what is considered most worth learning.

Third, measuring outcomes does not account for contexts and tends to disadvantage (and label) those facing adverse conditions. Which then makes it even more difficult for them to improve. There are many teachers who work very hard in difficult conditions – but don't attain the kind of outcomes expected because the curriculum assumes children will be able to attend daily or speak the school language at home (and several other such notions), which don't apply to the children they work with (some 60-70% in India). We'll end up shoving these teachers out if we take the advice to replace them – instead of overhauling the system which has designed itself in such a way that marginalized children WILL fail.

Fourth, there is a danger that the present focus on outcomes is actually obfuscating – instead of increasing – accountability. India's challenges now arise from its success in rapidly expanding the school system to bring in so many children. The consequence is that we now have students (at all levels) who traditionally never attended schools - working children, migrant groups, girls from various communities, children with disabilities, socially excluded communities…. the list is endless. What this means is that while the nature of our students has changed, the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment remain as they used to be and so, the DESIGN ITSELF leaves these learners out.

At a second level, when it comes to implementation, there is a tendency in those responsible to ignore laxity on the assumed ground that it is only happening to those who do not matter. (Just as it is easier to ask a poor person to push a stalled car rather than a well-dressed one, similar prejudices operation in all facets of our society, including government officials.) Even now, therefore, it is mainly those from better-resourced families who continue to succeed, and we continue to have poor education for the poor. So the accountability really needs to be demanded at the level of the system (NCERT, MHRD, Departments of Education) and state / district / block officials.

As long as people keep pointing fingers at teachers as the main villains, the really responsible will continue to escape accountability. For instance, when the NCERT's own national survey shows low levels of learning, why does nothing happen to anyone at any level, including the NCERT itself (whose curriculum has been taken by many states now performing poorly)? How come officials at various levels continue exactly as they have been for decades with impunity when every measure  brings out dismal levels of learning in their watch? Recently, when our group, IgnusERG assessed class 9 students in a district we found 68% of them to be at class 4-6 levels, 7% below class 3 level, and only 4% at the class 9 level where they were expected to be. When this finding is shared, everyone finds a way to blame some one else!

Finally, let me leave you with this – in the current form, knowledge of outcomes attained does not help bring about improvement. Most states will be implementing SLAS (State Learning Assessment Survey) in the coming months. But once a state finds out it is performing poorly, say, in mathematics, that will not inform it of the reasons why this is so. It could be the poor curriculum (e.g. overambitious expectations) or weak syllabus (less time allocated than required), or inappropriate pedagogy (no use of concrete materials at an early age) or bad textbooks (poorly sequenced or giving discrete rather than contextual examples) or demotivated teachers or insufficient teaching time (because the state continues using teachers for non-teaching tasks even after RTE and court orders to this effect) or home vs school language issues or at least 10 other problems that can be named, each of which can seriously lead to poor outcomes. So where will the improvement begin?

The point, as mentioned earlier, is: do ask for outcomes, but don't keep it simplistic, or we'll continue to get the poor outcomes we've been documenting over the last 20 years.

From Shirking To Working

One of the defining features of the government offices we visit is the number of people who seem to be comfortably sitting around doing nothing. Literally – nothing. You might find a chair occupier arrive, put away his lunch-box, arrange his things, have a drink of water and then sit down on his chair, make himself comfortable and then – simply sit there, look unseeingly in front. The more social / active among this population might move around talking with ‘friends’. The scholarly ones might unfurl a newspaper and go through it, all the while putting away files and documents absent-mindedly.

However, it would be really unfair to blame those in government service, for the desire to sit around and do nothing, especially if one is paid for it, may be found in almost as many places as you can imagine. The common view that ‘the moment a person becomes permanent he stops working’ does have plenty of reason to be so common! Those paid to do any work, if they do any work, often appear to be doing it under duress or at least clearly wishing they did not have to be doing it. So great is the aversion to actually working that it is common to hear people praise jobs where ‘pay is good but work is not hard.’

So why exactly is not working seen as better than working? Why would one deprive oneself of the satisfaction of becoming good at something, of being successful (and useful), of achieving results or a reputation? I think the reason is that these are precisely the things that most people in such positions can’t hope for. That is why for them, doing nothing is perhaps a better option.

Maybe a whole sociological / psychological / some-other-cal inquiry is needed to find out the underlying causes of this massive phenomenon. My amateurish take is that these people are in jobs that do not require them to think, take initiative or be responsible in any serious way. Their role is merely to follow instructions or – more commonly – pass on those instructions. Their chance of ever getting credit – is zero. Because there are no standards as to what it means to be ‘good’ in their work, they can never be appreciated or recognized or gain a real reputation.

So how do they respond? We know the answer…

The question for us: Is there any way in which shirkers can become workers? It might be simplistic but if we want to convert shirkers into workers we have to create conditions for success, where doing nothing is definitely worse than not working because it so clearly deprives you of so much that is so much more valuable! We need to think on the following:

•        Clarify where professional decisions must be taken by each ‘level’ of person
•        Identify standards of doing any task/job ‘well’ – so that it becomes possible for people to take pride in doing something well
•        Instead of relationships based on instructions, how about developing partnerships? 

This naturally seems idealistic, but one great thing is that this is one of those efforts that can begin at the top. Which means that instead of mobilizing masses, we need to convince a relatively smaller number of people. Once they do implement any of this, the results would speak for themselves.

PS:

The reason for my optimism? I’ve seen this work in far too many places to feel it can’t be done!

We have to leave the teacher in the classroom, isn't it?

Parimal Patel, a CRC coordinator from Gujarat, faced the following difficulty. To which there are no easy answers, but here's an attempt. Feel free to add your views!

Parimal Patel

Two days ago, I had a discussion in my cluster to make school history and to make school bio-data (which was made by me for my school by spending extra time in the school). Teachers liked  my idea but said that that in which time they would make it? They have had a lot of work since June. I'm asking this question because this is only one example – but there are so many policy-makers and the worker is only one. If we want quality we have to leave teacher in the classroom, isn't it? Please think about it – this is a more difficult question in primary education than any other.

Subir's response

Parimal (and many other friends struggling with the same problem) - you are right that the worker is one and policy makers are many, and all of them are trying to get the worker to do something or the other! So what can be done? Here are a few points for you all to consider:

• The curriculum development process is one very important way to create a framework and common understanding so that the different decision-makers and policy-makers can think in a coordinated way. In the next few months this will be shared across the state and a process to coordinate accordingly will start. In the beginning, though, you can expect a lot of struggle, since everyone will not agree on what the SRG has developed! Be prepared for different ideas all trying to occupy the same place. 

• When we work in the field, we do have to keep in mind specific actions. At the same time, don't worry if the teacher does not do what you are asking for - AS LONG AS HE/SHE IS WORKING TOWARDS THE SAME OBJECTIVE. The problem arises when the objectives themselves are different (as will happen this year in the Gunotsav). 

• The need to leave the teacher to work in the classroom is really important. We have opposite views about what is happening: some claim the teacher has got too many non-teaching tasks, and some say that the teacher is simply not spending the time in the class. Which view is the correct one? I think both are. People like me will keep on working with policy makers to ensure that non-teaching tasks are reduced, and other colleagues at field level will have to keep on working to ensure that teachers do spend the time available in the classroom. 

• I like the idea of the school bio-data. Maybe it does not have to be done in one go. How about putting up a chart or board, and letting teachers, children, even community members add things to it when they have the time. Then, perhaps after a month, in the morning assembly this can be shared (it is not necessary to keep doing the same things in morning assembly every day!). Different classes could be given the tasks in different subjects, related to the school bio-data (in language - do the writing work; in maths - make maps, tables with data; in social studies - trace the history; in drawing - make pictures of different aspects of the school, etc.). So making it a project, spreading it over time, and connecting it with ongoing processes might help. This has to do with how we imagine different things being done. 

• Finally, pl also read the post on 'How Teachers Change', and also 'How Teachers Learn' in my blog.

Your response?

How Do We Measure Change?

We repeatedly find ourselves saying that working on improving education implies change. That is because the very core of education – in terms of key relationships, processes and the critical outcomes desired – itself is expected to undergo a transformation. Some of the biggest differences expected are in terms of

• undoing the existing hierarchy,
• increasing accountability,
• evolving the role of the key stakeholders such as children and community from passive to active,
• in fact even a reversal of the notion of the 'beneficiary' (especially after the RTE, children and the community are the reasons why the education system exists; and teachers, educational officers and others in the system are the beneficiaries in that they get their salaries because children have a right to education)
• preparing children for life rather than just for examinations.

Thus it is not just a case of revision in components such as curriculum or textbooks or training or assessment but bringing about much deeper changes that will then manifest themselves in the different components. Change, therefore, in the underpinnings or the foundations themselves, implies major shift in emphasis, ways of working, the means used, the technical and human / social capabilities required, and a myriad other things. All this adds up to one word: change.

Much has been said on the issue of what this change is and the different ways of bringing it about (and more will appear too). But the one unresolved question confronting us is: how will we know if real change is actually happening, and to what extent? Is there any way in which we can capture / describe and 'measure' such deep change? As of now, the question really has us stumped. Any suggestions? 

The Myths of Tests - Or Going Around In a Circle

Sometimes, it's plain amazing to see the kind of debates taking place around the world. Here's a piece dealing with something we've often ranted against, the 'standardized tests'. Some of the phrases and terminology will seem remarkably familiar to readers here.

http://www.drdouggreen.com/wp-content/Myths-of-Tests.pdf

A great deal of this discussion took place in India when the MLLs were formulated, with behaviorism coming under attack. The new National Curriculum Framework 2005 is as 'anti-behavioral' as it can be. And the Right to Education Act mandates Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation rather than standardized testing. Board exams too have been pushed beyond Grade 10. Nevertheless, the pressure to use learning achievement data as a proxy for assessing the quality of the education system remains high (this is what Pratham's ASER implements every year). This summary, by practitioners as well as academics / researchers, captures some of the myths associated with testing.

PS: I'm NOT trying to promote sales of this book!

The Tsunami We Don't Always See

Our hearts go out to the sufferings of people in Japan. The pictures of the tsunami rushing in and engulfing everything in sight, wreaking havoc – will stay with us. Our sympathies and support should – and will – be available to help our fellow human beings in whatever way we can.

Our horror – and the desire to do something – would obviously be even more if we saw something similar happening all around us. And in a way something similar is happening all around us, only it is not as dramatic as a physical tsunami, making it a little difficult to be noticed by most people. It is what I would call the tsunami of poor quality of education that is hitting a million schools and tens of millions of children, its impact likely to be visible over the years rather than right now, instantly, in front of our eyes.

The Tsunami Around Us

No this is not alarmist, but an effort to put across a real picture and the urgency with which it needs to be recognized and acted upon. Every day, in hundreds of thousands of locations across the country, children make their way to the school. Around a quarter of them may find their teacher not there. This number alone is staggering, ranging as it would between one and two million teachers. MILLION! And if each teacher has 30 children in his class, you can estimate the number but not really conceive how enormous it is. And it is huge not just in terms of numbers, but for each child who loses a day of learning, and does so for many days every month, it is incalculable.

Had the facilities or the teachers not been available we could have cried over our fate in terms of being an underdeveloped country. But having the infrastructure (over 98% children have a school within a kilometre, and most buildings are not bad) and teachers actually in place (though the number of vacancies is still very large) – it is horrifying to watch or at least it should be, for there doesn't seem to be a sense of horror, or as much of it as would shake the country into action.

However the story doesn't end there. It is when 'teaching' takes place that the impact on children is often at its greatest. Decades ago, the Yashpal Committee's report on The Burden of the School Bag had detailed the 'burden of incomprehension' a majority of children bear. And it is difficult to see if things have changed dramatically, despite changed curricula, textbooks, the use of TLM, evolving assessment patterns, new training programmes… The number of children attending school – and their diversity – too has grown in leaps and bounds, while the approach to handling their needs has remained fairly static. Hence, survey after survey shows that – despite a degree of improvement – we continue to be far from the levels of learning desired (and possible).

But it is when it comes to the process that the greatest deadening effect takes place. Rote memorization, 'explanation' ina language not necessarily understood by children, a disregard for the needs of children who are too poor to be able to attend regularly, (an often active) discrimination in the classroom, are the lot of a majority of our children. If you doubt this, all you have to do is visit any 10 government schools in different locations, especially those away from 'headquarters'.

This is not to say that all government schools are bad and that the 'bad' is restricted to government schools. It is to point out that even if only a third of schools are like the ones described above (and the number is surely more than that), it adds up to literally hundreds of thousands of schools and tens of millions of children – a slow tsunami of poor quality education that is surely wreaking havoc on the potential of our children, our country.

Dealing With It

So after all this panic, what do we do?

As in any disaster, stay calm! First recognize that there is a problem and accept that something must be done about it.

Second, realize that you are the right person to do something about it. Anyone is, everyone is. Every small action counts. Even if you smile at a child, say an encouraging word to a teacher, raise this issue with friends, relatives and colleagues, you are doing something.

Third, if you are willing to be more proactive or are already active, please do look at the urgency of the situation. Children cannot wait for us to learn or get our act together slowly. We need to quickly:

• Establish the minimum conditions that must obtain. These are well laid out in the RTE (Right to Education) and its rules. Raise this issue wherever you can, and directly with the school or education authorities.
• Encourage and support the community and the school management committees (SMCs) drawn from among the community to become more active. You can help in setting them up, in record keeping, in setting the agenda, in follow up, in helping ensure that teachers take them seriously and that they in turn don't take an adversarial position vis-à-vis teachers. You can use your position to ensure that the educational agenda is not hijacked by the money-making or power-gaining agenda.

If you are a Head Teacher, supervisor, CRC-BRC / district level teacher educator or officer:

• Model the kind of behaviour you want from teachers
• Share practical steps they can take in their classes, especially in terms of activity-based teaching (see the many entries in this blog for support)
• Encourage teachers to be innovative, support them. If they ask questions, don't be dismissive (pass on the questions here if you can answer them!)

If you are a planner / policy-maker / decision- maker, please start by not dismissing what you have just read here. It is real, and it is happening – and it's on a gargantuan scale. On any given day, the number of children who are in school and not learning is more than the population of many countries – and it is a shame. What kind of performance standards can you set in place? What kind of outcomes can you insist on? How can you prepare the institutions and the system to deliver this, monitor them effectively and enable an ongoing improvement? Once again, the many entries in this blog would be helpful – and you could always share issues you would like others to provide suggestions / inputs on.

As surely as Japan will recover from the huge earthquake and the devastating tsunami, we can deal with this too. But first we have to see it as an emergency and address it. With all our might.

Celebrity Inexpert Commentators on Education - a link

Here's a piece I found really interesting and solid. Quite amazing that though the US and India would seem poles apart in terms of their education system, there are so many common issues!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ironic-Lessons-in-Educatio-by-Paul-Thomas-110301-979.html

And while I would ask whether we would listen to a billionaire's views if he had no money (we wouldn't), I would also go out of my way to talk to those who don't have any money to start with - the poorest of the poor who are just beginning to send their children to school.

Let me have your views.

Has Anyone Asked Teachers This Yet?

Over the last two decades, as the number of teachers has grown, so too has a certain attitude towards them. This comes up in different ways in the various interactions we have – during school visits, meetings at cluster or block level, workshops and training programmes for different groups of personnel, and informal interaction at all levels. Somehow, the discussion ends up at the teacher's door. And the following statement springs forth: 'Teacher is at the heart of the matter sir; only when teacher improves can anything improve.'

This is then followed by a long list of what teachers are not good at, including examples such as (this is a mild list!):

• Teachers don't practice Quality Teaching
• Are not able to 'go according to the level of children'
• Don't make use of psychology (I assume this means something called 'child psychology')
• Application is missing – teachers are not linking concepts to practical life.
• They show a lack of Social Awareness
• Don't go for innovative activities
• Don't do voluntary service
• Don’t give examples while teaching
• Don't pin accountability for the task given (i.e. don't take responsibility themselves)
• Fail to develop or revive the interest to teach
• Are not flexible to change their mentality
• Don't give individual attention to children
• Are not patient
• Don’t make use of case study
• Don't take a friendly approach
• Are poor listeners
• Have no tolerance
• Are partial
• Reluctant
• Lazy
• Lack in adaptation, and don't update their knowledge
• Are in a hurry to get the product rather than being bothered about the process
• Expect more with little effort!

Believe it or not, this is an actual list produced by participants in a workshop (which also included teachers!) and is also typical of most parts of the country.

But when asked to name any strengths that teachers have, what you usually get are blank stares or a scrawny, reluctant list of maybe four points, such as:

• Covers syllabus in time
• Preparing children for getting marks.
• Good in lecturing (encouraging rote learning)
• Conducting special coaching for those falling behind

As you can see, no shortage of left-handed compliments here!

Typically, when asked if they've actually asked teachers what they're good at, or what they feel they're not good at, the people who make the above statements tend to draw a blank! However, when teachers themselves are asked what they're not good at, their statements include points such as these:

• In trying to address the average student, I'm unable to take care of those who are falling behind
• I find it difficult to make the subject interesting for some students
• If parents can't help children with their homework, I find it difficult to help the child in class

Clearly, there's a perception mismatch between teachers and those tasked with appointing, deploying, orienting, developing, mentoring and monitoring teachers. It might be a little too much to ask, but the following seem clearly required;

• There's a need to listen to teachers before coming to the kind of conclusions we have come to
• In order to go beyond impressions, systematic observation and research are required
• How about finding out the strengths teachers have and how to build on them
• Finally, what is the system doing to make some of its own dire predictions about teachers become true?

Time, it seems, to make a course correction here.