Do we even know what we assess when we assess learning?

‘It took me quite some time to get the little girl to let me know what was bothering her,’ said Prof. A. K. Sharma, the former Director of NCERT. The year was 2000 and he was telling me about an incident from a class 2 maths period in the model school in the NCERT campus. The teacher had just completed teaching children subtraction of two-digit numbers with ‘borrowing’, and he had found two children hesitating over the problems they had been given to solve.

The first, a girl, had made a ‘mistake’ as she had failed to borrow from the tens side. Being a grandfatherly and kindly figure, he was able to cajole the girl to speak up. Very softly, looking down and away from him all the while, she said, ‘We learnt in the moral science class that borrowing is bad.’

Reeling from this, he approached the other child, a boy, and discussed why he had not completed his work on the problem. After much exchange, the boy said, ‘But why should I borrow 1? I want to borrow 2.’

Taking part in a recent session on ‘error analysis’, I was reminded of Prof. Sharma’s advice to engage with children to understand their ‘errors’ rather than rely on their work on paper. In numerous assessment experiences since, I’ve seen children who are otherwise very competent falter because of an issue at home or a fight with a friend or because they are being bullied. In open-ended questions in language, teachers are hard put to identify if there really is an ‘error’ or if the child’s view is a valid, logical interpretation. (And asking only close-ended questions is hardly sufficient to understand children’s abilities.) It becomes even more difficult when it comes to children from marginalized backgrounds – as they encounter discrimination and even denigration (of their background, language or culture), they often resist by ‘not-learning’ or do not answer out of fear of being ‘disciplined’.

As the evaluation industry expands in the Indian context with more and more professionals taking in rigorous analysis of children’s responses and analyses of their ‘errors’, the tendency is to interpret these within the framework of the subject for which the test was conducted. But do we know what we really assess when we look closely at children’s responses? What if it’s not a maths or language issue but something else altogether?

What happens when you seriously try to empower children, teachers and community through large scale education initiatives?

The pervasive notion that 'nothing has been done in education in India' could not be further from the truth. In fact not only has a great deal been done, but its consequences have been faced over decades. In particular, what follows applies to introducing educational designs based on local context, using the experiences and strengths of the stakeholders, creating a situation where they play an active role in determining and implementing processes.

Though obviously much must have been done over the decades till the 80s, my experience ranges from mid-80s, when I was part of a team working on such classroom practices, textbooks and educational designs from 1986 onwards. Implementation of the programme called Prashika (Prathamik Shiksha Karyakram) focused on marginalised groups, with the team living in a tribal area as well as in a rural, deprived pocket and introducing the innovation in government primary schools. The work in Prashika was pathbreaking in many, many ways (integration of 5 subjects at the primary level, incorporation of multiple local languages, a hugely localised textbook/workbook that could only be completed with each child contributing, called Khushi-Khushi - still not matched anywhere, I believe). It provided hope that much was possible despite the difficulties faced and informed many of the later efforts that followed, both in the government and the NGO sector.

Later in DPEP - particularly Kerala, Assam, Karnataka, Haryana, UP, Bihar, TN, Nagaland and later with SSA Gujarat further work was done. Localised training, contexualisable textbooks (some really brilliant stuff still not matched anywhere - and that's a professional opinion), teacher determined assessment system, involvement of community knowledge, children constructing local histories / local environment books, peer learning and assessments, textbooks that would be 'complete' only along with a set of 50 district-specific books kept in the school library.... many, many innovative and large scale measures were conceived and actually implemented using a strategically developed implementation plan. 

In each first five states we were able to see 2-3 years of implementation, development of hundreds / thousands of teachers who implemented contextualised learning, a high degree of in-class practice backed by supportive, localisable material. These states changed their position in the national achievement surveys too, with Kerala rising to the top (it had been fairly close to the bottom before this, below Bihar in the first national survey). In the case of Gujarat, field testing was done in 630 schools, researched by MSU Baroda with very encouraging findings. 

However, as long as we were not visibly successful there were no problems. When change began to be visible on some scale and a palpable sense of energy was witnessed among teachers and communities, alarm bells began to ring. in each of these states, the powers that be - especially at state level, state institutions, administrations, political parties - found that this went against the command-and-control structures conducive to them being able to assert their authority. Schools didn't want to be told what to teach when and how - they had their own plans. Empowered teachers / school heads / even some VECs refused to kowtow to mediocre ideas or corruption oriented bosses - leading to huge conflicts all over the place. Unfortunately these never got reported, recorded or researched. The results were mass scale transfers, cases against state project directors who encouraged this (Kerala SPD was charge sheeted, Karnataka SPD given punishment posting in North Karnataka, Assam SPD sent to conflict zone during worst riots, Bihar SPD transferred to PHED and later kept without posting), the re-casting of State Resource Groups from those selected for tested capabilities to those stocked with ex-officio positions, the emasculation of the BRC-CRC structures from genuine teacher support institutions into data collection centres (believe it or not, we did have functional BRCs CRCs at one time!), the centralisation of powers away from the VECs and re-casting into SMCs with a different function, and major shift in recruitments away from districts to states (in one state the Education Minister held a Recruitment Mela in a stadium to personally appoint 3000 para-teachers). 

Interestingly, Prashika in MP faced a similar adminstrative backlash and was closed down.

Yes, like it or not, this is what ideas of empowerment through education come up against - and they fall short not because of lack of any purity in the idea itself or absence of rigour, but because after a point when it goes into implementation an idea is something else, and not its original pure self. You might look at the actual work and find it is not 'up to the standard' - yet when trying to create it for those who need education the most, other aspects need to be taken into account. Basically, empowering the weak is clearly seen by the strong as disempowering them - and the empire strikes back! One of the outcomes is that a few years later, it appears as if nothing has been done, and people gear themselves up to again come up with 'innovative' ideas, often weaker than might already have been tried, uninformed by the past.

HOW TO DISCUSS NATIONALISM WITH YOUR STUDENTS

Why do it

Whether on the TV or in newspapers or on social media sites – we are today surrounded everywhere by strong views on nationalism. Groups of people are getting angry and upset, calling each other names, being violent. Your students too are caught in this, though they may not fully be aware of it. They will be absorbing views from different sources, all of which may not be reliable. And they may end up adopting strong opinions (or even what you consider misguided ones) without giving them sufficient thoughts. For this reason, we have prepared a discussion guide. It is important that at this crucial time, when they might be making a choice, you, their teacher, reach out to them and help them think things through.

So here are some hints. Use them in the way they work best for you. Drop them or change them or add to them according to your need and situation.

Preliminary – setting the ground

For such a discussion, it would be best to prepare the ground gently rather than rush into it. Here are some questions you could ask.

1. Have you been hearing or seeing the news or reading the newspapers?
2. What are some of the big issues being discussed?
3. What have you read or hear about the ‘nationalism debate’?

Provide background

Briefly give a background to the issue. It is possible many may not have heard it or may not have a clear idea of what happened.

Discuss the  issue

As students the following questions. Make sure you get everyone’s views, especially those who often don’t speak up. [Some hints are given in the brackets.]

1. So what do you think it means to love your country? [taking care of the environment? Looking after those who are not able to take care of themselves? Singing patriotic songs? Joining the army? Being polite to others? What else? Especially in our daily lives, what do we do (or can do) to show our patriotism?]
2. What are the best ways to show your love for your country? [you can use the list from the previous question to identify 2-3 of the ‘best’ or ‘most important’ ways and discuss why students think they are the best.]
3. What are some of the things you would not do if you love your country? [e.g. spitting everywhere as it spreads disease, not dirtying or vandalizing the environment, not jumping a queue or try to take an undue advantage…]
4. Even in a family everyone is not able to agree on everything? Have you seen any example of this? What happens in such a case?
5. So if someone does no agree with you, is it a good idea to beat him or her up? Why?
6. What do you think are the best ways to deal with disagreement?
7. And what if on the issue of loving your country, someone says something you don’t find pleasant? What should you do?
8. What are the best ways of finding out more deeply why people think the way they think? And how can you use that to help them see things differently?

Afterwards

Of course, this discussion will not end here. Give students some materials to read. Organize one or two follow up events. Suggest that the students have their own discussion group and contact you for help if needed.

All the best!

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’?

The Seven Myths of Highly Ineffective Education Systems – Myth # 1 of 7

Or

The Seven Myths That Make Education Difficult To Improve

Have you ever had the experience of failing to open a lock till you discovered that you were using the wrong key? That's a little like discovering after years or decades of work that perhaps some of the things we've been taking for granted all along don't necessarily hold true. There are probably many such notions, but here are what seem to be the seven most crucial ones. Each one of these is elaborated upon in a separate post, and followed by a note on what we can do - all over the next eight days.

The Seven Myths:

1. Children are homogenous

·      All must learn the same thing, in the same way, with the same material.
·      All must learn the same amount

If someone falls behind, something must be wrong with them – they don’t conform to the norm!

2. All children must attend school every day

3. There is one form of knowledge and it belongs to the ‘educated classes’.

4. Students learn mainly by listening to the teacher.

5. Teachers can improve by following instructions given to them by their seniors.

6. Stakeholders are concerned about education (as educationists understand it)

7. The education system exists to improve education.

Myth # 1 – Children are homogenous

·      All must learn the same thing, in the same way, with the same material.
·      All must learn the same amount

It’s quite amazing, isn’t it? What daily observation and commonsense (backed by vast, vast amounts of in-depth research) tells us is that children are very different from each other. That it is indeed difficult to expect all of them to learn the same amount in a year, that all ‘averages’ are mere guess work, certainly in terms of subject-related expectations after the early years. In fact, even the idea of putting children into classes or grades may not have sufficient basis – it is more management friendly than learning friendly. The question is not ‘How can the teacher teach if all children have to learn differently?’ but ‘How can naturally diverse children learn if the teacher teaches the same thing and in the same way to all?’

As a result of all this, if some children fall behind, it is assumed something must be wrong with them – they don’t conform to the norm! The ones falling behind are actually often those from under-resourced backgrounds – because the ‘norm’ and design of education is such that you are likely to do better if you are from an economically better background. Which is why it is actually news if a child from a poor family does well in a board exam!

And of course if you happen not to be able to learn the way in which you are being taught (you might be from a privileged family) even then something is wrong with you (though less wrong than if you were poor). You may not like school, but you can be sure the school does not like you too.

This myth is so common, so prevalent that it’s hard to imagine there might be other ways… what do you think?

Tomorrow, Myth # 2 of 7

The Real Issue With Tech In Ed

If doctors' interest and ability in diagnosing and helping patients improve were limited, if the medicines themselves were not always known to work, and if the patients didn't have much ability to pay - how much do you think 'tech' would work? Moreover, if 'tech' took over the mistakes usually made by teachers, it would work even less, isn't it?

This is what is happening in the case of 'technology in education'....

Vendors can be excused for touting their 'solutions' as real solutions - educators and decision-makers are the ones to be blamed for willingly falling into the trap of believing that technology will motivate teachers, overcome corruption, deal with the hierarchies that operate at the point of learning and perpetuate the hegemony of a few, tailor education to the needs and the experiences of the marginalized, solve the issue of huge and increasing diversity that teachers face, and overcome the indifference of the political / administrative establishment to poor educational performance.

A common finding in an analysis of most tech in ed efforts would likely show that after the initial enthusiasm and perhaps even use, the actual interaction / utilisation declines - eventually, it lies locked up or disused or misused (teachers use computers as a means of keeping children busy while they do something else). Sometimes a new wave of tech in ed displaces the old one but then neither end up making a sufficient difference.

It's not as if technology cannot make a difference, but it needs to be thought through differently. Usually, the thought process is - 'what can we do with tech'? This is like saying: 'now that we have a car, where should we go?' You might end up going somewhere you didn't want to go. Instead, the question should be - 'what do we desperately want to do / need to do (and why), in which technology can play a part?' Examples of this are relatively rare!