The REAL Reasons Why Change Is So Difficult In Education

If you're not in the government but are working to bring about change in education in India, you're likely to be using one or a mix of the following strategies:

1. Protest against whatever is going wrong

2. Provide data and evidence that things are not working (and occasionally, for what is working)

3. Intervene in policy and decision-making to the extent possible

4. Develop working models and ask the government or others to take them up

5. Actually take over or supplement the delivery function on behalf of the government

(As of now I can't locate any other strategy in use - but if you are using another one, do let me know so it can be part of this list.)

Here's a quick look at what each of these strategies involve and the kind of impact they seem to be having. (This is only a broad overview and not a nuanced analysis.)


Strategy 1: Protest against whatever is going wrong

From small village committees carrying their demands to block/districts officials, to state-wide forums of NGOs as well as the national RTE forum/s (there seem to be a few of these), various pressure groups have exerted themselves to protest against much that is not being done by the government.


The general notion seems to be that if you criticize the system or are able to make a serious protest - the system will somehow listen and start improving. As of now, there is no evidence that it really does. (It's very good in showing that it does, though! Look at all the advertisements issued by state governments where they list their achievements, including in education.) 

Results: Unsure impact. Getting a decent hearing is not easy, and even where there is a hearing, there is no guarantee that there will be an impact.


Strategy 2: Provide data and evidence that things are not working (and occasionally, for what is working)

The assumption is that if the system and decision-makers realize how wrong things are, or evidence is provided on what works and what doesn't, there will be appropriate changes and things will improve. Or that investment will be made on what is known to work. Partly based on this, a large number of think tanks have emerged (mainly comprising of western educated professionals) and produce a number of evidence-based documents every year. INGOs, donors and now VCs/similar funding agencies also take this view and back such efforts. The expansion of CSR and corporate supported initiatives all bring in this emphasis on 'in data we trust'.

Unfortunately, there is not enough data to show that our education system ever pays serious attention to data on student learning, or classroom processes - and makes a difference accordingly. (That it should is another matter - the fact is that it doesn't.) Though a huge amount of data is collected, and the system itself does a great deal of the collecting, its impact on actual functioning is extremely limited. (For instance, which curricula or textbooks in any state have been influenced by such evidence-based approaches? Or by the NCERT's own data from country-wide surveys of learning levels, or even by ASER?) Where the data is used to some extent - as in the case of DISE - its actual reliability is in question. Attendance data, for example, is routinely manipulated to ensure that others can also get to 'eat'.  

The system has a way of being blind to facts right before its nose. For instance, with a PTR norm of 30:1, in the foreseeable future (i.e. next 30 years), the 'typical' school in India will be the small school multi-grade (with 90-100 children in 5 classes, with 2-3 teachers) - implying that a majority of teachers will be teaching in multi-grade situations. Yet all curricula and training presently assume a mono-grade situation and believe that multi-grade will only be an exception. 

Result: Data flows off the system, usually like water off a duck's back. "That's not how decisions are made" - is a commonly heard statement in government offices, which indicates that there are other reasons why things are done the way they are done!


For those NGOs, donors, VCs and others hoping that 'evidence-based' and 'data-driven' strategies can actually persuade the system to bring about changes, especially those that make a real difference to the lives of the marginalized and the disempowered, there is a serious need to re-examine this strategy.

Strategy 3: Intervene in policy and decision-making to the extent possible

If you've worked hard to reach a position where you can impact policy or decision-making, this is the strategy you would use. The late Vinod Raina is a good example of this, being part of CABE and involved in drafting of the RTE. Not everyone can achieve the status of being an 'eminent' invitee to important bodies and hence this is an option only a very few can access. (And even if invited, having an actual say is very difficult - in typical 'high-power' meetings, participants speak turn by turn, and the Chairman then winds up the meeting!) Most people/organizations trying this route reach only the point where they are part of certain committees or perhaps even the various groups related to the Planning Commission, such as the Steering Committee, etc.

Results: As the fate of some of the crucial RTE provisions shows, the more things change, the more they remain the same! I know this is not exactly true - sometimes, some of the things improve. And sometimes they worsen, as the total mis-communication on CCE indicates. Policies, decisions, projects and programmes all run the risk of being hijacked by mediocre implementation, corruption and deliberate diversion to benefit certain groups. Overall, this strategy definitely gives less than optimal results in today's context (everybody cannot be a Vinod Raina!). The primary reason is that it is governance itself which is the key issue, which often fails to get addressed here.


Strategy 4: Develop working models and ask the government or others to take them up

Eklavya, Digantar, Bodh, Srujanika and hundreds of other organizations and projects have implemented pilot projects, started schools, even initiated small interventions within the government system -- with a view to generate models that will hopefully be 'replicated' or scaled up within the government set up. In fact, government programmes such as DPEP and SSA also incorporate an 'innovation' budget head that enables the setting up of such models that might eventually be expanded to the larger system.

Results: The history of upscaling shows that powerful models often lead to 

•   conflict (as was the case with the Hoshangabad Science Teacher Programme in MP, or the DPEP pedagogy upscaling in Kerala), or to 

•   a major reduction in quality of the original (as in ABL in TN, where only 22% children reached age-appropriate learning levels, as shown in a state-wide study facilitated by me when the programme was at its peak; or in the case of KGBV models that initially started well when run by NGOs)

The rest of the efforts don't really reach scalability, or if they do, they somehow fizzle out without leaving much impact. (Take Digantar's schools in Jaipur, Srujanika's effort in Odisha or the 'Active Schools' of Latur, Maharashtra, or the 'Kunjapuri' model in HP or indeed the various 'Model Schools' set up by the government itself in many states. This is really an endless list.)


Strategy 5: Actually take over the delivery function on behalf of the government


Several organizations are actually working on the ground with the government to improve the service delivery. They could be corporate houses who are taking over the management of schools (as is the case with the Bharti foundation running hundreds of schools for the Government of Haryana) to Azim Premji Foundation, which is creating its own channels (district schools up to the Education University). [As of now, I'm keeping vendors - such as those IT companies implementing Computer Aided Learning on a Build-Own-Transfer model - out of this discussion, as they see themselves more as 'solution-providers' rather than change facilitators.]

Results: The jury is still out on the kind of strategy being implemented by the two organizations mentioned above. However, large-scale efforts of the kind where a group/programme actually took over the government's functions -- such as Lok Jumbish (funded by SIDA initially) or Shiksha Karmi, or APPEP in AP (funded by the then ODA of UK), or Janshala (run by five UN agencies) in some 20+ districts in the country, or the Child-Friendly Schools project of Unicef in many parts of the country -- all generated a great deal of energy in their time and people talk of them with much fondness even now, but those areas still struggle with quality of learning in government schools. 

Even in the NGO sector, many programmes / projects that appeared to have achieved a great deal, now do not show the expected dramatic improvement still surviving on the ground. Take the case of all the areas where Pratham ran its Read India project. If Pratham has stopped working in an area over three years ago, the levels of reading in that area are now likely to be of concern (even if they had improved earlier), and are a part of the 'declining levels of learning' being documented in ASER.

In the early days of DPEP, when it was seen as 'different' from government, states such as Haryana, Assam, Karnataka, UP made radically different textbooks and training (taking over the functions of the SCERTs and DIETs), actually implementing high-energy, high-quality training over 2-3 years across the state. Yet today many of these states are at the forefront of the quality crisis.

Bottom-line: you can bring about change as long as you are there, but things go back to what they used to be once you're not there!

So what is it that makes change in education so difficult? 

Perhaps we need to face up to what really lies behind things being bad in the first place. We tend to assume that there's an inability to make things better. But what if it has more to do with the ability to keep things as they are? This might a little more deliberate than the systemic 'inertia' we're used to talking about (though not necessarily as a conscious conspiracy). To begin 'appreciating' this, take a look who loses what if education, especially in the government system, actually improves.  

•   TEACHERS will find their income from private coaching reduced/lost altogether (this is starkly clear in secondary education, which is one reason why improving classroom processes in secondary schools is very difficult). 

•   PRINCIPALS and OFFICIALS will not have control over teachers/SMCs who teach well and have community support. (Wherever quality improvement efforts have succeeded, conflicts of this kind have increased. Eventually, the more powerful section 'wins'. Several state governments - or rather the education ministers - have had VECs or SMCs reconstituted since they didn't find them 'convenient'; another example: look at how the provision for SMCs to select books for their school libraries is being subverted through various means.)

•   OFFICIALS will also find academically strong teachers/HMs/SMCs and even students do not easily 'comply' - corruption will be difficult to practice. (When more teachers start teaching well, school inspectors always end up making less money. When anyone 'lower' in the hierarchy is empowered, those 'above' have a problem. And as everyone knows, whenever students ask questions, they're told: 'shut up and don't act over-smart!')

•   POLICY-MAKERS will have to create a whole lot of new jobs for the large numbers of the newly educated. (This is clearly not an easy thing to do - and one way to deal with this is to keep people in education for longer, as appears to be the case behind the recent shift to a FOUR YEAR graduation programme in Delhi University, despite various other claims being made for it.)

•   The POLITY will have to face voters who can think and ask questions of them. (In 2000, one political leader actually stopped a state curriculum from being implemented on the grounds that 'if this is what children learn, who will ever vote for us?')

•   Since the majority of people are in some way of the other 'under' someone, the questioning of authority will mean that all kinds of HIERARCHIES will be under threat if education really improves - age, seniority, caste, class, gender, ethnicity, religion! (When young girls refuse to get married, or children ask for reasons behind what they're being told to do, or groups raise voice against discrimination - you can be sure that someone powerful has a problem, and usually manages to find a 'solution'. From rising wages for domestic labour to resenting the 'lower' classes accessing 'higher' levels of goods - such as mobile phones - the middle class too is not comfortable with the spread of education.)

All of which is sufficient to ensure the quality of education will not improve, isn't it? Sure, buildings will be built, as will handpumps and toilets, books will be printed and teachers appointed - since these are opportunities for 'side' income and asserting control over resources and people, or appearing to hand out largesse and thus earning 'gratitude'. However, the actual change in the nature of teaching learning processes, a shift in the kind of relationships practiced, and the levels of learning outcomes attained, especially for the marginalized - does not take place at the same pace at which the provisioning grows. In fact, it is much, much slower, if not actually negative at times.

The "system's" strategies

And how is this ensured? Why does increased provisioning not lead to desired change? As anyone familiar with implementation at the field level will know, a number of powerful strategies are used to to ensure that the 'others' don't get what 'we' have today.  

•   neglect (take the case of DIETs, which continue to be ignored even after the new Teacher Education Scheme; or the case of hard to reach groups such as street children, working children, migrant groups, or those with disability; or how the north-east itself is missing from our history books; or how the knowledge of women is not reflected in the curriculum)

•   selective poor performance (the same government machinery that can do a fairly good job in conducting elections somehow fails at ordinary execution in education; an analysis of which files take the longest to move as against their expected time, will provide a good insight into this)

•   siphoning off inputs meant for the needy (from mid-day meals that kill children, buildings that need to be abandoned within ten years due to poor construction, textbooks on poor paper - name an input and you'll find that what reaches children is well below what should; this includes the teacher's time, which is the minimum the state should be able to guarantee, but is not able to due to the absenteeism that is allowed)

•   wasting time in doing things that appear to be important but are not (such as organizing 'functions' or 'attending' to a visiting officer or collecting data on a whole range of issues, which in turn is not used much either), 

•   rewarding the mediocre (as is common, officers 'attach' certain teachers for their administrative chores, thus relieving them from teaching; and of course everyone knows that the way 'up' the system hierarchy is not mainly through good work...)

•   demonizing and harassing the committed (anyone who works sincerely is usually called 'mad' by others; those who stand up for children and community are often hounded, as can be seen by the number of allegations that they face)

•   creating designs that ensure perpetuation of marginalization (e.g. expecting children to attend school every single day no matter how poor, deprived or ill they are; or using only 'state' language instead of mother-tongue) - and many other such 'devices'. 

Supplementing all this is, of course, the common strategy of deliberate discrimination in the actual teaching learning process, something far too well-known for it to be elaborated upon...

In many ways, such strategies are used in the larger community and society as well, to ensure that that those who have been put in their place, remain in that place. As I was recently reminded by a Facebook comment, ‘If everyone gets educated who will till the fields and who will pick up your trash?’ As anyone above the age of 20 will recall, when mobile phones became cheap, many of the then chatterati were dismayed that ‘even plumbers, vegetable sellers and maids now have mobile phones’. And as can be seen in the middle class response to the admission of children from economically weaker sections in private schools under the RTE (‘they will spoil our children’s education’) – the word ‘system’ should perhaps include the larger society and its network of exploitative relationships in which everyone is complicit.

Thinking ahead

You already know all this very well, of course, and in repeating it here the intention is not to imply that nothing can be done or to mount a raving critique of how bad things are. Instead, in the interest of children, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, this is an appeal to recognize that the 'system' has far more powerful strategies than those seeking to do 'good' are able to put into practice - and the results are visible everywhere.

Should we stop using the five strategies mentioned earlier? No, but it would be better to take a longer, deeper view than we tend to take at present. Perhaps we need to stop underestimating the difficulty of the task and take into account that it is not the system's incompetence at making things better but its competence in keeping things the way they are that needs to be addressed.

What this calls for is a better understanding of the situation, of our own unwitting involvement in perpetuating it – and far, far smarter strategies.  

So exactly what IS CCE, and what it is NOT!

Take a look at the video here. Do let me have your comments.

Why do we need the system to change? And what kind of change?

Take a look at the video here.

So what exactly IS the role of a teacher?

In simple, straightforward terms, what IS the role of the teacher? Here's a video explaining this.

Unexpected and Unintended – Consequences of Curriculum and Material Development Processes

The following piece was difficult to write since it appears to make a tall claim. All I can say is that it is based on events that actually took place, and is true.

What started in Nagaland…

It was in the fourth workshop in Nagaland, in 2000, that participants stopped me and said they had something to share. All the education stuff they were learning was certainly very useful but what they valued far more was this: People from all the 16 tribes of the state were present in one room and, for the first time, they said, were not fighting! The process had somehow led all of them to feel like a family and they cherished this even more than the curriculum that was emerging from it.

How did this happen, I wondered. It was not being attempted (and in fact there was not even the awareness that something like this was required in the first place). So what went right? A little probing led to the realization that not being aware of who was from which tribe or occupied what social / professional position, the facilitation process could not distinguish between participants – no one was treated as being more ‘important’ or ‘different’.

A second feature was that much of the process revolved around generating a common set of experiences such as activities, school observations, classroom trialling, and intensive group discussions around key questions that had a larger canvas while also affecting state-specific decisions and implementation. The opportunity to evolve a common vision, agree upon the aims and objectives around which the curriculum would be built and developing consensus around the practical means to be adopted – all this led to ‘feeling like a family.’

Could this effect - that had happened ‘by mistake’ - actually be deliberately implemented? That is, could disparate groups who believed they had conflicting interests be brought together to ‘feel like a family’ through a consciously implemented version of this process?

It was not long before an opportunity to test this presented itself – in Afghanistan.

…Continued in Afghanistan

‘My brother from India,’ said a fearsome-looking senior member of the National Resource Group in Kabul, part of the Teacher Empowerment Programme, in 2003-04. It was the first effort to implement a country-wide in-service teacher training programme after the war. ‘My brother from India, do you know that we have in our group some people who are bandits! And we have to develop training with them!’

Before I could respond, another equally fierce gentleman thumped his desk, stood up and bellowed, ‘Our professor from India, when we were fighting the Russians in the mountains, some people were sitting in luxury in the USA!’ No one else seemed discomfited by this except me. How do you work with a group where members seemed intent on settling long-standing personal scores through you?

Once again it was really useful not to know who was exactly what. During the security briefing, I had been given a small chart depicting the various factions that had been at war with each other and now comprised the post-war nation. I had carefully put the chart away without looking at it. And had then thought about the kind of questions would work with this gathering of conflicting factions.

Therefore, as in many other places, the first question the participants got to work on was: ‘What games did you play as a child? And can you name at least 40 of them?’ In just a few moments the mood in the group had changed dramatically. People were gesturing, doing actions of the games they were describing, prodding each other to remember the names of the games they could recall, smiling more and more as their childhood seeped up and transported them into another time when they didn’t have this animosity. From then on, over the next several months, the process continued, with the fearsome gentlemen becoming less and less ferocious till they were actually good friends, and contributed greatly to the outcomes. Along with them, whatever factions that might have been there within the group also shed such reservations as they might have had about the ‘others’. By the end, in fact, it really was difficult to make out the groups that might have been there earlier….

And in a very different setting

Could there be a more difficult situation than Afghanistan? Actually, there could. During the thick of the LTTE-Sri Lankan Army war, I found myself in a workshop for writers, about half of whom were Tamil with the other half being Sinhala. Tamil writers arrived late to the venue, a few hours away from Colombo, as they had been held up again and again along the way by police and other security authorities – on the ground that they were Tamils moving around. One of the writers had just learnt that his brother had been arrested by the Sri Lankan police, on suspicion. Tamil and Sinhala writers were clearly unwilling to mix; in fact, there were many who did not know the other group’s language or English. It was the sensitivity displayed by the organizers and all others present that enabled the workshop to be held at all. However, a sense of awkwardness and whispered conversations pervaded the atmosphere and made it difficult to start.

Working through interpreters, one for each language, the challenge was to have a group that achieved some degree of comfort with each other and would relax sufficiently to enable a creative process to flow. Listening to lectures from the facilitator, however wonderful, was unlikely to achieve this. In this case the strategy of not knowing who was who was obviously not going to work…

What did work, however, was the use of ‘idea triggers’, which are ways to get people to think of things they otherwise would not. For example, take two completely unrelated words (such as ‘rocket’ and ‘goat’) and see if you can make a long and interesting sentence (at least 10 words long) that contains both the words. (Try this out a few times with the same two words and see what happens). Or, take an ordinary object – such as a spoon – and think of a place where it will usually never be found (e.g. on a branch high up on a tree) – and think of how it got there, what happened afterwards – and you will soon begin to get a story in your head.

As these ‘triggers’ began to be used, the ‘writer’ in the participants began to come to the fore. They bounced ideas off each other, laughing at the ridiculous and funny juxtapositions that were cropping up, teasing them into ideas for stories, applauding each others' creativity and slowly forgetting that that they were two peoples affected by being on the opposite sides of an ongoing war…

From 'Teacher Condemnation' to 'System Condemnation'?

Years ago, it was felt that the root of all problems in education is the teacher. In fact, the MLLs (Minimum Levels of Learning, which served as the de fact national curriculum framework) in the late 80s and early 90s were designed to ensure 'teacher accountability' in terms of the minimum that would be achieved. A popular programme, Rishi Valley's multi-grade teaching  (adopted/adapted as 'activity based learning' in many states) actually originated from the desire to get children to be able to learn without needing the teacher (which is why there is so much of self learning in it).

People still continue to condemn the teacher and hold him responsible for all the ills in education. However, with the proliferation of so many 'reports' on education all around, there is now a great sense of intolerance towards the education system itself. The belief seems to be that not only government teachers and schools but the government education system itself is condemnable. Among NGOs, academics, commentators, researchers and intellectuals the general notion seems to be gathering steam that everything and everyone in the government system is the problem!

But what is a system if not the people in it, the way they work and the frame within which they work? From that point of view, I have to say that some of the finest people I've come across are 'system' people. Every year I get the chance to work with thousands of teachers who I see putting in 12-14 hour days when others from outside the system (e.g. NGOs) fade away after only 8 hrs of input. This is not to say everything is OK with the system or the policies or the people - it's just point out that a black and white view doesn't help. And that just as it is not possible to change a teacher while condemning him, it is not likely to be possible to improve a system while condemning it!

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!

Anna's is NOT a movement for change

Let's imagine for a moment that corruption vanishes - no one takes bribes any more. Which of the following do you think would now happen as a result?

• Dalits will not face discrimination anywhere; people will stop believing in caste and elections will be around issues, not social groups. Unborn girls will not be killed, dowry will go, sexual harassment will vanish, the notion of 'minority' will not need to be discussed, equality and equity will be established.
• People will start working harder, with greater commitment, be much more innovative, and therefore the economy will shoot up. Private enterprise will no more be required to shore up government efforts.
• We will stop exploiting environmental resources in a dangerous manner, all power and energy related problems will be solved, petrol will become cheaper, our sources of water will not be polluted any more and global warming will come to a halt (at least in India).
• All children will start attending school and learning well; teachers will transform into good teachers, all government schools will become great schools, and India's learning standards will be among the highest in the world. In sports too we will emerge as a world power.
• Inflation will not affect us any more, the price of food and other essentials will come down, no matter what happens elsewhere in the world.
• Health and nutrition levels will go up greatly, diseases of the poor (water-borne ones or those caused by malnutrition, for instance) will be vanquished.
• Poor governance will vanish - in the absence of bribes, officials will become competent, start taking good decisions, stop representing power groups, start listening to people and actually working for their betterment.

I hope you were able to tick off quite a few!

Oscar Wild said: 'Stupidity is the only sin.' And in that sense, Anna&Co are great sinners. Unfortunately, those who continue to believe they're helping destroy the roots of our problems and bringing about real change - are even more so.

Three Reasons Why The Use Of I.T. In Schools Is NOT Leading to Improved Learning

Recent reports from different parts of the world show that computer / IT supported learning programmes are not yielding the learning improvements expected. 

So why is this happening?

After looking at a fair number of IT-based programmes, software, and reports from different sources, this appears to be because something critical is being ignored: that improved learning requires both improved relationships and processes, and a clearer focus on outcomes considered worthwhile. Let me explain this a little. 

1. IT Use Doesn't Seek to Impact Relationships 

Relationships among the key stakeholders - teachers, students, parents / community, school heads, supervisors and administrators, and academic support personnel - cannot be bypassed; without improving them, it is difficult to see learning outcomes improve. Living in the hope that IT usage will make a difference here, is to be unrealistic. For relationships to flourish, apart from changing the teacher's role (and several other aspects), activities that require real group thinking would make a difference. At present the IT material has not paid sufficient attention here, though it is uniquely placed to do so, especially in gaming software. 

In addition, of course, several governance changes are required (e.g. in how school 'inspection' takes place) as well as in management of learning (through better preparation for teaching, classroom organization and use of assessment). Again, a misplaced emphasis on IT will not see changes here.

2. IT Use Could - But Doesn't - Sufficiently Impact Processes:

Some parts of the curriculum require face time between teachers and students, and among students themselves. Some parts are better handled through IT - I believe such an analysis of curriculum has not been done, resulting in everything being dumped on to IT, much of which it is not really in a position to support. (Khan Academy does try to increase the face time by 'reversing' the class, but it still does not do this analysis sufficiently and could benefit from it).

3. IT Use Doesn't Always Focus On The Outcomes It Should

The tendency is to focus mainly on a limited number of scholastic outcomes. In fact, even within the subjects themselves, higher order learning objectives are often ignored, or under-represented. Believe it or not, this affects the learning of other aspects as well! E.g. children who have the opportunity to make creative use of language end up being better in grammar and spelling than children who get an overdose of grammar and spelling. A great deal of IT material is geared to towards getting children to answer tests / exams rather than help in real, long-term learning.

But other than the subjects, larger curricular goals - such as cooperation, respect for diversity, development of a scientific outlook and an ecological perspective, developing a questioning mind, democratic values - hardly figure in much of the IT based material / activities. Implying that it is, at best, supporting some parts of subject-oriented learning rather than  education as such.

So is all this emphasis on 'modern technology' wrong and misguided? No, not necessarily wrong, but our expectations are certainly misplaced. In our desire to find the one single magic solution we have ignored the many other actions that need to be taken before learning improves. Perhaps focusing on IT seems easier and more exciting than than the hard work that the other stuff requires.

At any rate, IT is clearly not the silver bullet that many desperately believe it to be. It needs to be treated as just one more tool to be used, rather than as a solution for problems that it can't solve. And even as a tool, it needs to be used much better than is the case at present. 

What Do We Actually 'Celebrate' In Our Schools?

'So, you're 'celebrating' again.'

'Yes, it's Independence Day tomorrow.'

'Oh, so another round of ritualistic speeches?'

'What do you mean, ritualistic speeches?'

'You know what I mean. The same old 'important' people will be called. They will be welcomed, garlanded and they will walk around, feeling even more self-important.'

'You're being very unkind, you know.'

'But close to the truth, isn't it?'

'I'm not sure if this is really ritualistic…'

'No, it is what follows afterwards…. The same formal atmosphere will be created. Children will sit in neat rows and told not to talk too much. The LIP (or your Local Important Person) will be praised, invited to give us the benefit of his wisdom, children will be asked to shush, and then the LIP will give the same speech as every year – you are the future of the country… freedom is very important.. our great leaders were so very great… you must work hard… you must try to like the great people of the past… And all this while instead of experiencing freedom on Independence Day of India, children will be sitting bored, stiff, not allowed tomove around or talk or express themselves….'

'You're being really harsh!''

'OK, tell me, didn't you hear the same speeches when you were a child?'

'Ye-es.'

'Did you really enjoy those celebrations? Were they a celebration for you?'

'Actually, to be honest, no, not really.'

'Aren't you surprised that the same speeches are being made even now?'

'Yeah, now that you mention it…'

'And shouldn't children be more like the leaders of tomorrow rather than the leaders of long past. After all, every kid is not going to experience walking 17 kilometres to school!'

'Hmm… something to think about, there. And come to think of it, why was every great man's school 17 kilometres away?'

'See, it's getting you too!  And when it comes to – no, no, better not to say that.'

'Well you can tell me... I'm not going to shout at you!'

'I know you won't. But I don't want you to feel depressed either.'

'Come on, I can handle it. Tell me what you were going to say.'

'Well, if you insist. The thing is, children attend all these functions year after year, experience the same thing over and over again. And what do they learn? They learn that they don't matter. Their job is to listen. Their role is to be passive, not think for themselves. And look at you – you were a child who once found these functions boring but you are organizing exactly the same kind of function again! Independence Day isn't quite an experience in Independence, isn't it? My thesis is that these National Day type of 'celebrations' only teach us to be slaves, to accept that we have no freedom to be different or better, to allow ourselves to be defined by the limited vision of those limited adults who were similarly made limited by the experience they went through as children themselves…. Hey, you're suddenly very silent now. This is not look good… come on, say something.'

'What do I say? I'm feeling so…'

'So… what?'

'So depressed!'

-------------------------------------------------

What do you think about the other 'celebrations' we have in our schools? Is the birthday of a child celebrated 'more' or differently or better than that of other children whose families are considered to be less important or not influential?

What are the festivals celebrated in schools? Whose festivals are left out? Many communities / religious groups never see their festivals even discussed in school? What do they feel about it? And what do they 'learn' from this?

On Sports Day, do most children have the scope to participate and gain something? Or is only the 'victory' of a  few celebrated again and again? And what do the rest learn from this?

And on Results Day, whose achievements stand out? And what does everyone learn from this? (Maybe CCE will make a difference here?)

Perhaps all these celebrations, in the end, make us realise that their isn't much about us that is worth celebrating. When I was younger I would have said that this happens even though the intention is quite different. But now, a little more battered and older, I think the intention was always this – to make you realise that only a few can be 'important' persons worth celebrating, not you.

-------------------------------------------------

So what should we celebrate in our schools?

For starters, children and learning. Simply the presence of every child is worth celebrating (rather than 'Oh God, another one!'). And how to celebrate? By smiling, by welcoming, by genuinely talking with the child, giving space to her questions, by looking for ways to ensure she is comfortable, involved and engaged in an actual learning.

Children will ask unexpected questions, offer different points of view, find innovative ways of doing things, or help each other… celebrate this. Point out what they have done which is so good, and why it is so.

There will be times when those who usually 'fall behind' will make an effort, come up with something of their own (of course, only if you ensure they have the opportunity to do so). Celebrate their efforts, point out their good parts, and indicate what else they can do that will earn them similar 'celebration'.

If you find a fellow teacher, a staff member, a parent, an SMC member who is doing something successfully and contributing to children and the school, that's worth celebrating.

And on Independence Day? Start a few days before. Discuss with children what Independence Day means to us. Ask them how they think it should be celebrated. Come up with ideas that puts the children in the front, not adults or LIPs. Maybe they make drawings and posters related to freedom. Maybe they hold a debate on what freedom means and whether we really are a free people. Maybe they decide not to do a 'function' in the  school at all and instead spend time with children who are unable to be in school because they are not really free…And maybe they will learn something very different from such 'celebrations' than we did.