ECI to establish a Visiting Chair on Interdisciplinary Approach to Electoral Studies in memory of former CEC Sh T N Seshan

To commemorate and celebrate Sh T N Seshan’s special connect with the young and aspiring India, Election Commission of India has decided to establish and fund a Visiting chair on interdisciplinary approach to Electoral Studies in the Centre for Curriculum Development at India international institute of Democracy and Election Management( IIIDEM ), New Delhi from 2020-2025. The Chair will be mentored by Sh N Gopalaswami Former CEC.

Chief Election Commissioner Sh Sunil Arora today announced this decision while delivering the Keynote address at the Institute of Law, NIRMA University, Ahmedabad. President of NIRMA University, Dr Karsanbhai K Patel, Sh.Umesh Sinha Secretary General ECI, Vice Chancellor-Dr. Anup Singh, Dr Purvi Pokhariyal, Director, Institute of Law, faculty and students were present on the occasion. Sh Arora had been invited by the University on the occasion of Law Conclave organized in memory of the legendary Constitutional expert, economist and jurist par excellence Shri Nani Palkhiwala.

Speaking on the occasion Sh Arora said “Sh T N Seshan’s enduring contribution to the cause of probity, transparency and integrity in various aspects of the electoral process in India has made his name synonymous with electoral best practices worldwide. In his memory thus ECI would establish the Chair. It shall be our endeavour to ensure that the Chair becomes fully functional during the next academic session August- September, 2020.” The detailed modalities of the establishment of the Chair shall be worked out by Sh. Umesh Sinha, Secretary General, Sh. Dharmendra Sharma, DG IIIDEM and Mona Sreenivas, Director ECI and will be presented to the Commission by March 15, 2020. The Visiting Chair programme will be targeted to young academics with proven track record in fields relatable to electoral studies. The Chair will also be expected to curate one National Level Seminar on specific aspects of Electoral Studies. The Visiting Chair will also supervise designing and development of interdisciplinary curriculum/ modules for further training and research at the IIIDEM.

Delivering his lecture on Electoral law – its evolution and practice in India, Chief Election Commissioner said “Coincidentally, the 70th Anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of India on 26th November, 1950 is close at hand, affording an opportunity for all of us to deliberate upon the path ahead”.

Sh Arora said “Our Constitution is a living document. In many ways, it is also an evolving document which has endured the test of times. From its very inception, the Constitution has spelt, for each and every Indian, a vocabulary of rights, entitlements, duties as well as the trinity of equality, freedom and dignity which make life meaningful” CEC said. The Election commission, like any institution, has to constantly reinvent itself in order to confront new and emerging challenges”, CEC stated.

Shri Arora said “The electoral journey has been remarkable. Yet we cannot sit on past laurels. The Commission is committed to bring more reforms to ensure that the process become more in sync with the times, the current technologies and enhanced voter participation. Recently, the concept of Absentee voters has been made part of our process. We hope to have more than one qualifying dates for eligibility of voters. We have large number of overseas population and we need to devise a mechanism to facilitate their participation in the electoral process. We also need to work harder to curb the menace of money power, misinformation and to check the criminal elements in the arena of elections.” He added that “the roots of democracy run deep in our consciousness. So does an inherent sense of what constitutes right and wrong. Given this, I can say with conviction that the voter of this country is no longer naïve, passive recipient in the play of political democracy. Despite the fact that voting is not compulsory, more than 67% people come out to vote especially the women, senior citizens and persons with disability. “The strength lies in “We the People”. It is the collective power of the People that is invoked through the Constitution” Sh Arora emphasized.

Journalism is a pious mission for the cause of nation – Vice President

The Vice President, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu today urged the media to not color news with views and stressed the need to maintain objectivity, fairness and accuracy. “The neutrality and sanctity of newsrooms should be upheld at all times”, he said.

Speaking at an event organized by Press Council of India on the occasion of National Press Day, in New Delhi today, he said that the cardinal principle of journalism is to present fair, objective, accurate and balanced information to the reader and viewer without journalists assuming the role of the gatekeepers.

The Vice President further said that this has become all the more critical in the present times after the advent of the ‘fake news’ phenomenon and the huge impact the social media is creating. “Sensationalism, biased coverage and paid news have become the modern-day afflictions of the media, he said adding that under no circumstances can slanted and opinionated reporting be termed as ‘interpretative reporting’.

Shri Naidu expressed concern over the fact that business groups and even political parties setting up newspapers and TV channels to further their interests.“With this the core values of journalism are getting eroded”, he said.

Maintaining that freedom and responsibility cannot be considered as inseparable, he opined that media must not only act as the watchdog to protect democracy but must also act as the true champion of the underdog. It has to be in the vanguard of fighting the ills that are plaguing the society.

The Vice President said that media landscape has transformed dramatically over the years and so have the values of journalism. In the past, journalism was treated as a mission for the nation’s service. Talking about the present state of affairs, he asked journalists’ bodies like PCI to do a serious introspection.

Shri Naidu said that time has come for media bodies to come out with a code of conduct for journalists. “In view of the critical role journalism plays in protecting democracy and in serving the larger good of the society, we should strengthen this important fourth pillar by ensuring that ‘truth’ is never compromised”, he added.

Noting that mobile phones are revolutionizing the manner in which we share information, he said every smart phone user has become a potential journalist. “No doubt, the internet and mobile telephony have democratized the availability of information. However, the glut of information is also generating fake news and fake narratives”, he added cautioning that, “journalists must guard against such news and fake narratives as they can be used by vested interests to create dissensions and divisions in our pluralistic society”.

The Vice President also appealed to media to provide greater space to development news andimportant sectors such as agriculture.

Admitting that legislations alone can not bring desired change, he called upon the media to play a positive role in creating public opinion on the need to eradicate corruption and social evils like gender and caste discrimination. “We have seen the positive impact created by the media in promoting the campaign for a Clean India”, he said.

Talking about the abrogation of Article370, he said that it was only a temporary provision which was removed by the Parliament with huge majority. He appealed to Indian journalistic community to convey the right facts to the world about Kashmir.

During this occasion, the Vice President also gave away the awards to the winners of ‘National Awards for Excellence in Journalism 2019’ under various categories.Eminent journalist Shri Gulab Kothari was awarded the prestigious ‘Raja Ram Mohan Roy Award’ for his outstanding journalism.

Shri Naidu also released three publications namely – the Directory of Press Council of India since 1966, the updated Norms of Journalistic Conduct Edition -2019 and a souvenir, ‘Reporting-Interpretation–A journey’ on the occasion.

Union Minister, Shri Prakash Javadekar, PCI Chairperson, Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, Convener, Jury Committee and Member, PCI, Shri Jai Shankar Gupta and Secretary, PCI, Smt. Anupama Bhatnagar were among the dignitaries who graced the occasion. Representatives from various foreign countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar also attended the event.

Following is the full text of the speech –

“I am indeed extremely delighted to be amidst you all and share my views on the occasion of the National Press Day, which symbolizes the important role played by a free and responsible press.

It was on this day in 1966, the Press Council of India, a quasi-judicial body, started functioning as a watchdog body.

I am happy that several journalists in different areas are being honored for excellence in journalism today. My congratulations to all the winners!

Dear sisters and brothers,

Ever Since the launch of the first newspaper in India-‘The Bengal Gazette’ by James Augustus Hickey in 1780, the presshas been playing an outstanding role in empowering the people.

The press played a pioneering and stellar role in inspiring the masses to fight against the Britishduring the freedom struggle and in strengthening the democratic foundations in the country since Independence. The nationalist role played by the newspapers and journals contributed in no small measure to influencing and moulding the public opinion during the freedom struggle. However, during the Emergency, barring few exceptions like ‘The Indian Express’, ‘The Statesman’ and ‘The Mainstream’, the response of the Indian press by and large was muted during the Emergency.

The blank editorial published by The Indian Express during Emergency, under the leadership of Ramnath ji, was perhaps one of the strongest protests ever published against censorship in India.

It spoke more loudly than any words could have.

When asked about his fight for the truth in the face of stiff resistance, Ramnath Goenka ji was reported to have said : “I had two options–to listen to the dictates of my heart or my purse. I chose to listen to my heart”.

The media landscape has transformed dramatically over the years and so have the values of journalism. In the past, journalism was treated as a mission and those who wielded the pen were committed to ethics and highest standards of journalism. They used to work with undiminished enthusiasm and were overzealous in protecting its values.

The topic chosen for discussion on National Press Day this year–“Reporting-Interpretation–A journey” is quite appropriate. News used to be news in the past and it was neither interpreted nor misinterpreted.News and views were easily distinguishable.

The times have changed and so have the trends. These days, there appears to be a very thin dividing line between news and views. The news story is not only interpreted in tune with the management’s line of thinking, but the treatment it gets conveys a lot.

Occasionally, we do find that even important and newsworthy developments do not merit place on the front page and are rather buried in the inside pages.

The cardinal principle of journalism is to present fair, objective, accurate and balanced information to the reader and viewer without journalists assuming the role of the gatekeepers.

Fortunately for us there are a number of journalists who follow these principles. And that is what makes the Indian media so credible and unshackled by constraints.

However, there are aberrations like in any system. It is one thing to provide an insightful analysis of a news development by substantiating it with facts and figures and another thing to build a story on conjecture. The essential challenge is when this trend tends to become a new normal. Under no circumstances can slanted and opinionated reporting be termed as “interpretative reporting”.

Perhaps, it would be appropriate here to recall the views of Mahatma Gandhi on newspapers. He had said:“One of the objects of a newspaper is to understand popular feeling and to give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is fearlessly to expose popular defects.”

Instead of giving expression to popular feeling, some newspapers these days are giving expression to coloured and partisan views.For instance, reading any one major newspaper in the past used to give a fairly good understanding of what was happening around the country and the world. But it is not the case now. One will have to read a minimum of four to five major newspapers to get a complete sense of the current developments. Same is the case with the news channels.

Time and again, I have urged the media to not color news with views and stressed the need to maintain objectivity, fairness and accuracy. The neutrality and sanctity of newsrooms should be upheld at all times.

This has become all the more critical in the present times after the advent of the ‘fake news’ phenomenon and the huge impact the social media is creating.

With the electronic and social media providing news by the minute with alerts and flashes on smart phones, journalists will have to exercise greater caution and guard against ‘fake news’, disinformation and misinformation.

Sensationalism, biased coverage and ‘’paid news’’ have become the modern-day afflictions of the media.

With business groups and even political parties setting up newspapers and TV channels to further their interests, the core values of journalism are getting eroded.

Without delving further into the reasons for the present state of affairs, I would like journalists’ bodies like yours to do a serious introspection.

In such a context, freedom and responsibility of the media acquire far greater significance than ever before. Freedom and responsibility cannot be considered as inseparable and are inter-dependent on each other. The media has the onerous responsibility to not only provide unadulterated and correct information, but also educate the people on their rights as well.

It should also be remembered that freedom of media is not absolute and is circumscribed by certain reasonable restrictions relating to security of State, public order, decency or morality, defamation and contempt of court and sovereignty and integrity of India.

It should also be noted that during sensitive developments, vested interests use the social media to spread fake news and disinformation.

Finally, media must not only act as the watchdog to protect democracy but must also act as the true champion of the underdog. It has to be in the vanguard of fighting the ills that are plaguing the society.

The media must also provide greater space to development news andimportant sectors such as agriculture.

Since the press has the power to influence public opinion, the credibility of newspapers in particular and the media in general is extremely crucial. A newspaper with credibility will gain the trust of the readers and has the chance to establish long-standing relationship with them.

In view of the huge influence in shaping the public opinion, the role of mass media assumes greater significance in the present era. It can play a positive role in creating public opinion on the need to eradicate corruption and social evils like gender and caste discrimination. The investigative journalism that uncovered the Watergate scandal and the subsequent downfall of an American President is still fresh in memory. There are many instances in which the media and of late the social media played a critical role—take the example of Egyptian uprising some years ago.

We have seen the positive impact created by the media in promoting the campaign for a ‘Clean India’. Thus, I feel that the press, TV and even the social media must educate the people on important health issues such as lifestyle changes and growing incidence of Non Communicable Diseases.

Of course, mobile phones are revolutionizing the manner in which we share data, information and visuals. With the number of smart phone users crossing 450 million in the country, every smart phone user has become a potential journalist. In fact, there are many instances where smart phone users have become “citizen journalists and virtually provided breaking news alerts to TV news channels. No doubt, the internet and mobile telephony have democratized the availability of information. However, the glut of information is also generating fake news and fake narratives. Journalists must guard against such news and fake narratives as they can be used by vested interests to create dissensions and divisions in our pluralistic society.

Apart from enforcing self-regulation, the media must ensure that the core values of accuracy, fairness, objectivity, news worthiness and independence are never compromised.Instead of focusing on negativity, it is important for newspapers in a country like India to accord importance to development journalism.

May be the time has come for media bodies to come out with a code of conduct for journalists. In view of the critical role journalism plays in protecting democracy and in serving the larger good of the society, we should strengthen this important fourth pillar by ensuring that “truth” is never compromised.

I compliment the Press Council of India for its role in promoting responsible journalism in the country.

Jai Hindi!”

*****

The Seven Myths of Highly Ineffective Education Systems – Myth # 5 of 7

Myth # 5 – Teachers can improve by following instructions given to them by their seniors

This is an extension of the previous myth, except it operates between officials/supervisors and teachers. The notion is that the teacher is merely a cog in the wheel, lower down in the hierarchy, and the best way to get him to improve is to make him comply with instructions from above. Apart from the fact that the instructions from above often tend to be problematic, it is also true that many of them don’t get implemented at all. At best, teachers can be made to comply with rules such as coming on time, or turning in a certain amount of work – but they can’t be made to like children, or smile at them, or feel like coming to work every day and radiating this enthusiasm to students and colleagues. That is only possible if the system seeks a partnership with teachers, treats them as fellow stakeholders and engages with them on a more equal footing.

As the experience of RTE shows, instructions, rules and even laws that make lack of compliance justiciable – are insufficient to bring about the required change. They are simply the wrong instrument for the purpose. (I’ve written about coercive and generative power elsewhere.)

So what is the way in which teachers change?

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 \’Teacher Condemnation\’ to \’System Condemnation\’?

Unexpected and Unintended – Consequences of Curriculum and Material Development Processes

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\’?

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.

Five Questions To Ask Your Election Candidate!

With elections not so far away, here are five questions you can encourage people to ask of their prospective representatives. We used these in the last general elections, and had encouraging results. They were re-printed by others and spread over a fairly wide area in Varanasi and Lucknow regions. Many candidates and their party heads had to touch upon these issues. Unfortunately, we got the idea fairly late during the campaign season. This time though we need not be so late!

Inviting everyone to take a look and use what they find fit. Right now, these are in Hindi (and not a good reproduction of the original flyer) – will put up an English version as well.

Five Questions to Ask Your Election Candidate (English Version)

This election may affect your children. Especially if your would-be representative in legislative assembly keeps the following in mind.

· Education – good / quality education – is everyone’s right. Especially after the RTE, education in every government school should be such that everyone finds it good. But even very poor parents are removing their children from government schools and making sacrifices to send their children to private schools.

Ask your would-be representative – Question 1: What will you do to ensure appropriate and quality education in government schools?

· Teachers’ salaries have gone up. They now get training from time to time to enable good education for children. There is provision for mid-day-meals, school uniforms, play equipment, learning material – all free. But there is demotivation among teachers. They feel neglected. They feel as if they are not being respected.

Ask your would-be representative – Question 2: What will you do so that teachers take interest in their work and are committed to the good education of their children?

· According to RTE the responsibility of running/managing the schools will now be with community and panchayats. But the community and the panchayats feel: how can we give any advice to the school? They do not find themselves capable of advising / supporting schools. And they feel this is not even their work.

Ask your would-be representative – Question 3: What will you do to enable the active involvement of community and panchayats in improving education in our schools?

· Community and parents both expect that education will ensure children’s development as well as employment. But now people say: All this education is going to lead only to unemployment, so it is better that the child be engaged in some wage-earning work right away.

Ask your would-be representative – Question 4: What will you do so that every member of the community is aware and committed towards the education of their children?

· If we look at the money spent on education, most of it is used for salries, infrastructure and maintenance. Crores of rupees are spent every year on this. Even then our schools and education offices look dirty and disorganized compared to private institutions. And the people responsible for improving education for children cannot even be heard talking about it.

Ask your would-be representative – Question 5: What will you do so that government schools and education offices look attractive? So that people in the system not only think of children’s improvement but also do what is needed?

Your views will have an impact, won’t they? But only if you raise these questions! Give your vote only if you get an answer! So go ahead, ask questions, get others to ask, and let us know!!

Our contact: ignuspahal@gmail.com

Have You Been Un-Hindu Today?

Once in a while I recall that I am born a Hindu. This is usually around times when a whole lot of people are suddenly finding the need to defend Hinduism.

1. This is a little ironic. Why do you need to protect that which cannot be destroyed? Can the words or images of another person kill or harm your religion? To those who believe in God/s: even if all the people who believe in God should cease to exist will God/s cease to exist? Similarly, does Hinduism need the acceptance and support of all those being fought against in order to exist and flourish? It seems very reductionist and belittles Hinduism for anyone to say that the religion needs protection.

2. This business of religious sentiments being hurt is even more ridiculous. Why are Hindu religious sentiments hurt only by words and images but not by un-Hindu actions such as rape, murder and the racism being practiced against people from the NE in Delhi, or the displacement of Muslims in Muzaffarnagar or a thousand such atrocious acts? We are a religion that believes in the whole universe being a family, isn’t it? Why are we not religiously wounded by such major offences that hurt millions of the universal family but hugely traumatized by minor pinpricks such as a book that will be read by a few thousand people?

3. Being the transcendent religion that believes animals and trees and various forms, animate and inanimate, have the element of the Divine running through them and are therefore nothing but mere manifestations of the Unified One, how can we even distinguish between ‘ourselves’ and ‘others’? Surely the distinction is impossible and the very idea of ‘not tolerating’ someone or some view would be inadmissible – for even the so-called offender is nothing but another manifestation of the same ONE divine. So the idea of ‘getting upset’ so militantly at someone’s view is, in my view, very un-Hindu.

4. In an ecological worldview that goes well beyond the physical world, the notion is that every component have a just and fair place, the justness and fairness of which is determined by the degree to which it links with others and desists from eating into others’ space and resources. Which is the idea behind being ‘content’ – to occupy that which fulfills your need without competing with another’s, thus maintaining the ecosystem. Wanting more than this justifiable space and resource takes you into the realm of that which does not (because it should not) exist – maya. And we are taught not to want more than our remit for this reason. This is a key principle by which the universe maintains its balance, and disturbances take place when this balance is upset. Every time we seek to dominate or attribute to ourselves the right to determine others’ activities in their spheres (such as what they may think or write), we are guilty of going beyond that which is justly ours – and again, being very un-Hindu!

5. And finally, like all great religions, Hinduism too believes that real victory is one that is over oneself. No matter how much you ‘defeat’ your enemies, if you are unable to overcome yourself, that is, your own limitations and the un-divine aspects of yourself, you cannot be considered a victor. So if anyone is claiming victory at having ‘vanquished’ something offensive, do desist, for you have not won.

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.

The Three Simplest, Least Expensive Ways To Improve Learning In Children

What\’s the simplest, least expensive way to improve learning in children? Here are three such. They cost you no money, and are entirely in your control. They do involve technique, but not technology. However, they don’t involve working extra hard (just changing what you do, slightly).

1. Smile more!

This has to be the least expensive and most effective. Smile. Look at children and smile a happy smile. You’re lucky to be with them. And smile the one that glows in your eyes – all children have an inbuilt ability to know when you’re only pretending.

And what should you do after smiling? Well, nothing special, just keep on doing whatever you were doing – teaching or taking children out or organizing the morning assembly or the mid-day meal or asking them to come back into the class. Smile.

And let me know after three months about the improved learning in your classroom. As they say, you need neither money nor orders to do this.

2. Talk with children. And listen more

We have so much to tell children – instructions, information, questions, answers. But all this is not equal to talking with children. Real conversation requires taking an interest in the lives of your students, interacting with them about things that matter to them, and above all – listening to them. If you are the kind of teacher that children can relate with and say what is in their minds, you’re well on your way to improving learning in the classroom.

3. Ask yourself what you would like if you were the child in front of you

We were all born as babies and spent a fair amount of time as children. Unfortunately, we grew up and became adults. We forgot that delight which gripped us when something new or challenging or interesting was put before us. We lost track of that person in us who would not give up something engaging, no matter what. And of course we fail to recall how much we enjoyed learning something, especially when we did it on our own, whether it was cycling or reading a book to figure something out or in the sports field.

Now that you’re a teacher, it will really help if for a moment you put yourself in your students’ place. What would you really enjoy being engaged in most? What way of presenting or unfolding the learning objective under consideration be most involving? How could you get children themselves to do and think more?

This is neither as difficult or crazy as it sounds. In fact, it’s much simpler than taking the usual role of doing all the work yourself – explaining, showing a picture, using the blackboard, thinking of examples to give – while children are simply sitting around watching you! In fact, this is also what you are supposed to do – i.e. use activity, exploration, projects and other similar means.

How difficult is that? Not so difficult that it can’t be done. There are many, many sources for you to draw upon, as there are many in-service training and materials available for you. And just in case there aren’t, do let me know.

In the meantime, I hope you’ll make vigorous use of these three simplest, least expensive methods – and really boost learning among your children.

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!

What does ‘Education For Freedom’ mean to You?

Usually, it seems to mean: to become free from want. In the sense of being able to stand on one’s own feet, by being able to earn a livelihood or having a job (much more the last, in our case). But what education seems to be doing, in our context at least, is to create wants.

Just because a person has crossed, say, secondary education, ‘traditional’ work no longer seems to be enough for him, whether he has been prepared for any other career or not. And of course if a person does get a job, the desire to be more and more like the ‘educated’ and upwardly mobile – leads to more and more and more wants…

At the other end of the spectrum of views on this, freedom from want is seen as getting rid of the wants! When education is more religious and ‘environmental’, it helps a person realize that his wants are really few and that he is at his most free when helping others, and reducing from the earth the burden of bearing him. A nation of ascetics is an interesting idea but probably not a very desirable one!

So that leaves us the vast space in between the two extreme views (of ‘want more’ and ‘want nothing) on ‘education for freedom’. Where do you find yourself on this? Is this the lens from which to look at ‘education for freedom’? Is this even a worthwhile question in our times? What do you think?

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this: