Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

QUALITYPRIMARYEDUCATIONININDIA.

AreviewandanalysisoftheNationalCurriculumFramework2005(NCF-2005),

withafocusoncurriculumreforminprimary(GradeI-V)education.

AnshuSaha

SHXANS001

Aminordissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthe

awardofthedegreeof

MasterofEducation

FacultyofHumanities

UniversityofCapeTown

2016

The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non-commercial research purposes only.

Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

ii

DECLARATION

Thisworkhasnotbeenpreviouslysubmittedinwhole,orinpart,fortheawardof

any degree. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this dissertation

fromthework,orworks,ofotherpeoplehasbeenattributed,andhasbeencited

andreferenced.

Signature:____________________________ Date:___________________

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank my supervisor,Mr James David Gilmour, for his constant guidance,

encouragementandpatienceoverthelastyearandahalf.Thankyousomuchforforcingmeto

take a look atmywork in differentways and openingmymind. The discussions helpedme

immenselyineveryaspectofmyresearch.Alsoyourincessantencouragementatallstagesof

myresearchworkwasimperativeforthecompletionofthisstudy.

IwouldliketothankDr.PaulaEnsorforherindispensableadviceandinformationonthevarious

facetsoftheIndianCurriculumduringthecourseworkdiscussion.YoursandMrGilmour’sclass

wasprobablythemostusefulclassIhavetaken.LastyearIalwayslookedforwardtobothyour

classesoflearningandroundsofsnacks.

IwouldalsoliketothankDr.JeanneGamblefortakingthetimeouttotalkwithme.Thishelped

metremendouslyinbringingsomeclaritytomythoughtprocess.

Mostofall,abigthankyoutomyparentsandbrother-Aakash,fortheirunduesupport.Youare

allmystrengthandwithoutyourconstantloveandsupport,mereachingsofarawaywouldhave

beenadistantreality.

Iwouldliketothankmy‘amazing’friend-Ankur,forhissupportandencouragementthroughout

theprocessbykeepingmeharmoniousandbeingapatientlistener.Youareastar!

Myamazingandbeautiful friends,Sasha,CrystalJade,andAmara, thankyouallsomuchfor

makingmyshortstayinCapeTownaloteasierthanIthoughtitwasgoingtobe.Youwillallmake

greatadministrators,teachersorprofessorssomeday!

Finally,toGod,whoseincomprehensiblegraceanddeeplovecarriedmethroughthisendeavour.

iv

ABSTRACT TheNationalCurriculumFramework,2005 (NCF-2005)was introducedby theGovernmentof

Indiatoaddresstheissueofqualityineducation.Thisstudyaimstoanalysetheareaofactual

curriculum reform for quality aspects at the primary (Grade I-V) level, both generally and

specificallywithinIndia,inordertolookatthequalityaspectofeducation,whichtheNCF-2005

highlightsasakeyaim.Inlightofthis,thekeyquestionthatthecurrentstudyasksis:howdoes

the National Curriculum Framework 2005 (NCF-2005) address the ‘quality’ issue for primary

education?

Inordertomovemorecloselytoanassessmentof‘quality’withinNCF-2005,thisstudyemployed

documentanalysisandCriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA)asmethodologicaltools.Thestudyused

CDAtogenerateacriticalanalysisofthedominantdiscoursesintheNCF-2005policydocument

alongside a framework that included tools for policy analysis. An important feature of the

frameworkdesignwasthatitconsideredvariousdefinitionsof‘quality’attheinternationallevel;

theinfluenceoftheseonthenationallevel,andhowtheseareoperationalizedinthecurriculum

throughtheNCF-2005’skeymonitoringtool-QualityMonitoringTool(QMT).Theprimarylevel

(GradeI-V)curriculumisusedinthisthesisasanillustrativecase.

Thisstudyconcludeswithanattempttohighlightthattheproblemdoesnotnecessarilyliewith

thequalityindicatorsorthedefinitionofquality,nornecessarilywiththecurriculumitself.On

thecontrarythedifficultyliesfarmorewithcompleximplementationissues-theQMTs,thetexts,

andthelackofteachertrainingtoimplementthenewcurriculum.Also,thestudyhighlightshow

thehumanistic indicatorsthatbettercapturetheconceptof ‘quality’havebeendownplayed.

ThusthethesisconcludesthattheNCF-2005doesnotsufficientlycapturethedifferingpolitical,

social and education ideologies resulting in a subsequent gap between the policy and its

implementation.

TableofContents

DECLARATION.........................................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................iv

Listoffiguresandtables.........................................................................................................3

Acronyms...............................................................................................................................4

ChapterOne:IntroductiontotheStudy..................................................................................61.1Introduction................................................................................................................................61.2RationaleandPurposeoftheStudy............................................................................................81.3Researchquestions.....................................................................................................................91.4Organizationofthethesis...........................................................................................................9

ChapterTwo:TheIndianEducationSystem:itsNatureandPlanningDirections....................112.1Introduction..............................................................................................................................112.2Education:afundamentalright.................................................................................................122.3ThenatureoftheIndianeducationsystem...............................................................................142.4Keypolicyframeworksforeducationdevelopment..................................................................16

2.4.1NationalPolicyofEducation(NPE)1986/92.............................................................................162.4.2SarvaShikshaAbhiyan(SSA)......................................................................................................17

2.4.2.1ProvisionofqualityeducationunderSSA..........................................................................................182.4.3TheNationalCurriculumFramework2005(NCF-2005)............................................................20

2.6Conclusion................................................................................................................................22

ChapterThree:The‘Quality’Problem....................................................................................233.1Introduction..............................................................................................................................233.2Defining‘quality’......................................................................................................................24

3.2.1Perspectiveson‘quality’fromtheinternationalliterature.......................................................243.2.2TheEFAGlobalMonitoringReport(2005)EducationforAll:TheQualityImperative..............273.2.3Thecomplexitiesattheheartof‘quality’.................................................................................323.2.4TheNationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining(NCERT)QualityMonitoringTools(QMT).................................................................................................................................................33

3.3Analysingpolicy........................................................................................................................353.3.1Thecomplexitiesassociatedwith‘policy’inschools.................................................................40

3.4Conclusion................................................................................................................................41

ChapterFour:Methodology..................................................................................................424.1Introduction..............................................................................................................................42

2

4.2Researchdesign........................................................................................................................424.2.1Stepsinvolvedindesigningthetheoreticalframework............................................................43

4.3Researchmethods....................................................................................................................454.3.1Documentanalysis....................................................................................................................454.3.2CriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA)...............................................................................................464.3.3Crucialguidingquestions..........................................................................................................47

4.4.Analysis:ValidityandReliability...............................................................................................484.5Ethics........................................................................................................................................494.6Limitationsofthestudy............................................................................................................49

ChapterFive:TheNationalCurriculumFramework-2005(NCF-2005).....................................515.1Introduction..............................................................................................................................515.2ThepoliticalideologiesunderpinningNCF-2005........................................................................545.3GuidingprinciplesofNCF-2005.................................................................................................585.4ThestrengthsandlimitationsoftheNCERTQualityMonitoringTools(QMTs)..........................645.5ThequalityissuewithinNCF-2005.............................................................................................69

5.5.1HowdoesNCF-2005definequality?.........................................................................................695.6Curriculumdiscoursesattheprimarylevel................................................................................72

5.6.1Constructivistand/or‘child-centred’formsofteachingandlearning:.....................................725.6.2Teacher-trainingprocesses.......................................................................................................89

5.7Conclusion................................................................................................................................91

ChapterSix:Conclusion.........................................................................................................95

References............................................................................................................................97

Appendices.........................................................................................................................107Appendix1:ProgresstowardstheEFAgoals...................................................................................108Appendix2:PolicyandQualityrelatedcriticalquestions................................................................112Appendix3:Schoolstagesandcurricularareas...............................................................................117Appendix4:SchoolMonitoringFormatSheetundertheQualityMonitoringTool.........................128

3

Listoffiguresandtables

TABLE-1.1:PROGRESSMADEBYINDIATOWARDSTHEEFAGOALS...............................................................7

TABLE-2.1:KEYCHANGESTHATGUIDEDTHEDEVELOPMENTOFEDUCATIONININDIA..........................12

TABLE-2.2:THESIZEANDSHAPEOFSCHOOLEDUCATIONININDIA2013-2014........................................15

TABLE-2.3:PROGRESSASREPORTEDUNDERTHESSAPROGRAMME.........................................................18

FIGURE-4.1:BROADCONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK............................................................................................43

TABLE-5.1:EDUCATIONALSHIFTSWITHNCF-2005..........................................................................................59

4

AcronymsAIDS AcquiredImmuneDeficiencysyndromeAWC AnganwadiCentreBJP BharatiyaJanataPartyBRC BlockResourceCentre(India)CABE CentralAdvisoryBoardofEducationCBSE TheCentralBoardofSecondaryEducationCCE ContinuousandComprehensiveEvaluationCDA CriticalDiscourseAnalysisCRC ClusterResourceCentre(India)CWSNs ChildrenwithSpecialNeedsEC EuropeanCommissionECCE EarlyChildhoodCareandEducationEDI EducationDevelopmentIndexEFA EducationforAllGDP GrossDomesticProductionGER GrossEnrolmentRatioGMR GlobalMonitoringReportGoI GovernmentofIndiaHIV HumanimmunodeficiencyvirusICDS IntegratedChildDevelopmentSchemeICSE TheCouncilfortheIndianSchoolCertificateExaminationICT InformationandCommunicationsTechnologyIIEP InternationalInstituteforEducationalPlanning MDG MillenniumDevelopmentalGoals MHRD MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment(Government

ofIndia)NCERT NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining

(India)NCF NationalCurriculumFrameworkNCFTE NationalCurriculumforFrameworkforTeacherEducationNCTE NationalCouncilofTeacherEducationNER NationalEnrolmentRatioNFO Non-GovernmentalOrganizationn.d. NodateNPE NationalPolicyonEducation

5

n.p. NopagenumberNUEPA NationalUniversityofEducationalPlanningand AdministrationOECD OrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopmentOoSC Out-of-schoolchildrenPIRLs ProgressinInternationalReadingLiteracyStudyPISA ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessmentP-Tratio Pupil-teacherratioPoA ProgrammeofActionQMT QualityMonitoringTools,devisedbyNCERT,IndiaRTE RightofChildrentoFreeandCompulsoryEducationSC ScheduledCastes(India):Legaldefinitionofthoseformerly

knowndalitorharijan,listedunderIndia’s1950Constitutionasentitledtoreceivepositivediscrimination.TheScheduleCastescompriseofapproximately16.6percentofIndia’spopulation(accordingtothe2011census).SCs,alongwithScheduledTribes(ST),arehistoricallyamongIndia’smostmarginalisedculturalgroups.

SMT SchoolMonitoringFormatSSA SarvaShikshaAbhiyan(India):Initiatedin2001-02asthe

successortotheDistrictPrimaryEducationProgramme(DPEP).

ST ScheduleTribes(India):ScheduleTribecommunitieslistedundertheIndianConstitutionandformingabout8.6percentofthecountry’stotalpopulation(accordingtothe2011census).

TIMSS TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy(formerlyThirdInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy)

TLMs TeachingandLearningMaterials UNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCultural

OrganisationUNICEF UnitedNationsChildren’sFundUEE UniversalElementaryEducationUPE UniversalPrimaryEducationWB WorldBank

6

ChapterOne:IntroductiontotheStudy

1.1IntroductionSinceIndia’sindependencein1947therehavebeennumerouspolicyinterventionsdirectedat

improvingthe‘quality’aspectofeducation.TheseincludetheNationalPolicyonEducation1968

(NPE,1968);anditssubsequentreformsin1986(NPE,1986)andin1992.Inaddition,theSarva

ShikshaAbhiyan(SSA),the“EducationforAllMovement”in2001-02wasdesignedasanumbrella

programmetoaddressthreeEducationForAll1(EFA)goals–Access(Goal2),Equity(Goal5)and

Quality(Goal6)(UNESCO,2015b:4).Mostrecently,theNationalCurriculumFramework,2005

(henceforth, NCF-2005) was introduced to address the issue of quality in education (partly

conceivedofasperformanceincertainsubjectsaswellaschangesinpedagogy).Theselastthree

have been formulated to resonate with the EFA framework and India's Constitutional

AmendmentActs2.

This thesiswill examine the key policy directionswithin NCF-2005 for quality aspects at the

primarylevel.Thislevelhasbeenselectedasafocuspartlybecauseitisthefoundationofthe

wholeeducationsystem.Andsecondly,duetotheenormousnumberofdropoutsafterprimary.

TheNCF-2005focusesonfourkey issues:LearningWithoutBurden3byaddressingcurriculum

load,whilesuggestingareductioninthenumberoftextbooksforpupils(NCF2005:2);promotion

1EducationforAll,wasamovementinitiatedduringthe“WorldEducationconferenceonEducationfor

All”heldinJomtien,Thailand,in1990.However,thesixmeasurableeducationgoalsforEFAwereadoptedbytheWorldEducationforumheldinDakar,Senegal,on26-28April2000(NUEPA,2014:2).

2“TheConstitution(Eighty-sixthAmendments)Act,2002insertedArticle21-AintheConstitutionof

IndiatoprovideforfreeandcompulsoryeducationforallchildrenintheagegroupofsixtofourteenyearsasaFundamentalRight”(NUEPA,2014:4).

3LearningWithoutBurdenfocusesonmakinglearninga‘joyfulexperience’bymovingawayfromtextbookswhilestressingonexaminationandredesigningofsyllabus(NCF2005:2).

7

ofuniversalenrolmentandretentionofchildrenupto14yearsofage(PoA:1992:77, inNCF

2005,4);child-centredapproachtoteachingandlearning(PoA:1992:77,inNCF2005:4);and

“substantialimprovementinthequalityofeducationinschool”(NCF2005:4).

I will in my thesis focus on the last key issue where efforts invested into improving India’s

educationsystemforqualityaspectsattheprimarylevel,willbehighlighted.Iwilldosobyfirstly

enlisting theaims,objectivesandprogressmadeashighlighted inNCF-2005, theprogramme

whichwas launchedbytheGovernmentof India(CentralGovernment)towardsachievingthe

quality dimension of elementary education all over the country. Secondly, Iwill do a critical

analysisoftheNCF-2005asacurriculumdocument.Lastly,inexaminingIndiaasacasestudy,I

willhighlighthow‘quality’initsfullsensehasnotbeenachieved.

ThestatisticaldataintheEFAGlobalMonitoringReportforIndiaandtheEducationforAll2015

NationalReviewReport, reports thatoutof the six EFAgoals,whileGoal-2andGoal-3 show

improvementinresults,Goals1,4and5callforfutureintervention.

Table-1.1:ProgressmadebyIndiatowardstheEFAgoalsGoal-1: EarlyChildhoodCareandDevelopment(ECCE):

Gross-EnrolmentRatio(GER):AnincreaseinGERinpre-primaryeducationfrom18%in1999to55%in2010observed(NUEPA,2014:18).45%ofchildrenstillremainoutofpre-primaryeducation.

Goal-2 UniversalisationofElementaryEducation(UEE):Universalaccess:Schoolsimpartingprimaryeducation:increasedby34.5%from2000-01to2013-14(NUEPA,2014:22).Universalenrolment:TheGER inprimarywasreportedtobe101.4% in2013-14from95.7%in2000-01(ibid:26).Out-of-schoolchildren(OoSC)intheagegroup6-14years:4.28%in2009-10(ibid:44)Universalretention:Dropoutrateattheprimarylevelhasreducedfrom40.7%to24.9%between2000-01and2008-09(ibid:46)

Goal-3 Youthliteracyrate(15-24years): Increasedfrom76.43%in2001(NUEPA,2014:6)to89.65%in2015(Refer:UNESCOstatisticalwebsite).

8

Goal-4 Adultliteracyrate:Age7yearsandabove:Improvedfrom64.84%to72.49%between2001and2011(ibid:65).Age15yearsandabove:Although increased from61% in2001 (NUEPA,2014:68) to72.13%in2015,fallsbelowtheprojected100%literacyrate(Refer:UNESCOstatisticalwebsite).

Goal-5 Genderparityandequalityinelementaryeducation:Interventionsforgenderparityatprimaryandupper-primaryeducationisneededforimprovingenrolmentofgirls,whichisat48.2%and48.6%(NUEPA,2014:Figure2.5.1:74).

Goal-6 Ensuringphysicalaccessandequitywhileimprovingallaspectsofqualityofeducation

ThesearethekeyissuesthathavebeentakenupbytheIndiangovernment.However, inthe

Indian case, even though there have been necessary improvements, these have not been

sufficienttoattainGoal-6,thefocusofthisstudy.

1.2RationaleandPurposeoftheStudyThisthesisanalysestheareaofactualcurriculumreformforqualityaspectsattheprimary(Grade

I-V) level,bothgenerallyandspecificallywithinIndia, inorderto lookatthequalityaspectof

education,whichtheNCF-2005highlightsasakeyaim.Thisaspecthaslongbeenafocusofthe

IndianGovernment’sMinistryofHumanResourceDepartment(MHRD)andwasreinforced in

the2015EFAreviewreportforIndia(NUEPA,2014)whichhadasitstheme"TowardsQuality

withEquity."Thus Indiahasa firm resolve to focuson 'qualityeducation'and tounderstand

whetherornotchildren'sachievementsareimprovingovertimeinanequitablemanner.

IntheabsenceofstandardtestsatthenationallevelforprimarygradeinIndiaotherindicators,

suchasaccesstoeducation,especially,forgirlsandruralchildren;retentionrates;enrolment

ratesand literacyrates,especiallyamongstgirls/womenhavebecomeastandardmethodfor

measuring quality. However, if ‘quality’ can be seen as more than the sum of quantitative

indicators which essentially measure ‘equality’ (see Gilmour, 2001 for example), and should

embodyqualitativefactorssuchaspedagogy,textsandcurriculumdesign(seeAlexander,2008

9

forexample),thenitisimportanttoexaminetheNCF-2005documentationindetailaswellasits

implementation.

1.3Researchquestions

Onekey-questionandtwosub-questionsassistedmeinfocusingtheresearchprocess:

Keyquestion:

• How does the National Curriculum Framework 2005 (NCF-2005) address the ‘quality’

issueforprimaryeducation?

Subquestions:

• Whatarethedefinitionsof‘quality’embeddedinthenationaldocumentssuchasthe

SSAandNCF-2005?

• Are theproposed reformsadvocatedby theNCF-2005 forachievingqualityeducation

desirableandimplementable?

1.4OrganizationofthethesisThisthesisisorganizedintosixchapters.ChapterOneoutlinesthemotivationforthestudyand

identifies the key questions that drive this study. This chapter underlines the study’s core

objectivewhichwastoinvestigatetheunderstandingof‘quality’asembeddedintheNCF-2005

andtoassesstheinterveningprogrammesforimprovingthequalityofeducation.

Chapter Two outlines the background of the Indian education system. The purpose of this

chapteristohighlighttheimportanceofcrucialpolicyandplanningroutestakeninIndia.The

keyquestionswhichwillbeexploredare:firstly,howalignedaretheConstitutionalActsandits

successive amendments, the National Policy on Education-1986 (reformed in 1992) (NPE-

1986/92), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and the National Curriculum Framework, 2005 (NCF-

2005)?Secondly,whatarethekeyobjectivesoftheNPE-1986/92policydocumentandtheSSA

10

programme in the Indianeducationsystem?Thirdly,whataimsandobjectivesdoes theNCF-

2005documentunderlineforaddressing‘quality’ineducation?

ChapterThreeoutlinestheconceptual framework. In thiscontext, theconceptual framework

includesananalysisof the theoreticaldebatesaroundthe term ‘quality’.Thepurposeof this

chapter is to explore key questions: firstly, howhas ‘quality’ been examined in international

policydocuments? Secondly, howdoes thepolicydocumentof Indiadefine ‘quality’ andare

theseusagesinter-connected?Thirdly,whattoolsdoestheIndianEducationNationalCouncilof

EducationalResearchandTraining(NCERT)useformonitoring ‘quality’education?And lastly,

whatare thecausesof complexitiesassociatedwith ‘policy’?Thesequestionsandothersare

addressedinthischapterthroughacomprehensiveliteraturereview.

ChapterFouroutlinestheresearchdesignandmethodologyemployed,andthemotivationfor

these.ItusesadocumentanalysisandCriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA)approachanddescribes

thetheoreticalframeworkdeveloped,selectionofcertaindocumentsandquestionsofvalidity.

Lastly,limitationsofthestudyhavealsobeenaddressed.

Chapter Five provides an in-depth analysis of the policy text around the provision of quality

educationthroughtheNCF-2005,whileChapterSixdiscussestheimplicationsofthestudy.

11

ChapterTwo:TheIndianEducationSystem:itsNatureandPlanningDirections

2.1Introduction

ThepurposeofthischapteristooutlinecrucialfeaturesoftheIndianeducationsystemandthe

variousConstitutionalActsinordertoprovideabackgroundtothecurrentdispensationofthe

NCF-2005.ThisiscrucialastheConstitutionalActsandtheiramendmentswerethecornerstones

on which subsequent policy interventions – the NPE-1986/92, the NCF-2005, and planning

directions-theSSA,weredesigned.

Thelegislationsince1950hasrecognisededucationasakeyinterventioninsolvingissuesinIndia

(Naik, 1962: n.p.). The key issues in the Indian education system have been its low quality

education system coupled with unequal access and participation rates, exclusion and

consequently limitedequity.TherehavebeennumerousActsthathaveattemptedtoaddress

theseissuesbutdespitethis,inmanyrespectsthesegoalshavenotbeenobtained.

ThekeyissuesexaminedinthischapterarethesignificanceofthevariouseducationalActsand

their amendments. Thiswill thenbe followedby a brief discussionof theNational Policy on

Education (NPE) 1986/92 and its relevance to the Education for All4 (EFA) framework. Key

features of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), a national programmatic intervention for achieving

‘quality’educationwillbedelineated.Lastly,India’sachievementtowardsthesixEFAgoalswill

bebrieflydiscussed.Theplanningdirectionswillexaminethevariousmeasuresputintoplacefor

facilitatingprovisionofqualityeducation.Thesepointsandothersareaddressedinthischapter

throughacomprehensivepolicyandprogrammedocumentanalysis.

4EducationforAll(EFA)isaprogrammeformedwiththecommitmenttoprovideforhigh-qualitybasiceducationforallchildren,youthandadults.Initiatedin1990,thesixspecificeducationalgoalsforEFAwerereconfirmedinApril2000.Thesegoalsweretobeachievedby2015.

12

2.2Education:afundamentalright

Atanofficiallevel,India’scommitmenttoeducationiscomparabletoothernations.However,

translatingthemintorealityhashadsomechallenges. India’scommitmenttowardsproviding

basicqualityeducationforallwasagoalfirstenshrinedintheIndianConstitutionsince1950.The

keylegislationinrelationtoqualityinclusiveeducationisdiscussedbelowinTable2.1.

Table-2.1:KeychangesthatguidedthedevelopmentofeducationinIndia Year ConstitutionalActs Keyfeature Keyinterventions/changes

1950 TheoriginalArticle-45presentintheDirectivePrincipleofStatePolicy.

ThisArticlemakesitmandatoryontheStatetoprovidefreeandcompulsoryeducationtoallchildrenuntiltheyreachfourteenyearsofage(NationalUniversityofEducationalPlanningandAdministration(NUEPA)(NUEPA,2014:5).

Notwithstandingtheprogressmadewithintenyearsofitscommencement,theGovernmentreiterateditscommitmenttoachievinguniversalelementaryeducation.

1976 ‘Education’asharedresponsibilitybetweentheCentralGovernmentandtheStates.

1986/92

NPE Keysalientfeaturesare:1. Stressingtheimportanceof‘education’foritscitizens.2. SettingupaNationalSystemofEducation.3. Promotingequality,qualityandinclusiveeducationand

developmentamongstwomen,childrenwithspecialneedsandminoritygroups.

4. Facilitatingadulteducation.2000 NCF-2000 Itemphasisespreservingtheheterogeneityofthesocietybyadvocating

forchangesonthethreepillarsof‘relevance,equityandexcellence’.2001-02

SSA ACentrally-sponsoredflagshipprogrammeforuniversalisationofelementaryeducation(UEE).

2002

‘86thConstitutionalAmendmentAct2002’.ThisinsertedArticle21-A.

Article21-Areiteratedthegoalofprovisionof“universalfreeandcompulsoryeducationforallchildrenintheagegroupofsixtofourteenyearsasaFundamentalRight”,asenjoinedbytheState(NUEPA,2014:5).

RewritingofArticle-45andtheIntroductionofArticle-46andArticle30[1]

TheConstitutionentrustsupontheStatetoprovideECCEuntiltheageofsix(NUEPA,2014:5).

Itadvocatedfortherightsofsocial,educationalandeconomicinterestoftheweakersectionofthesociety,particularlytheScheduledCastes(SC),ScheduledTribes(ST)andtheMinorities(NUEPA,2014:5).

13

Inall,bymakingeducationaFundamentalRightitwasmadelegallyenforceableontheStatetoprovideforfreeandcompulsoryeducation(Chauhan,2008:232).

2005 NCF-2005 Itemphasisestheholisticdevelopmentofthelearnerwhileaimingtowardsanequitable,inclusiveandqualityeducationsystemandsociety.

2009 RightofChildrentoFreeandCompulsoryEducation(RTE)Act,2009underArticle21-AcameintoforceinIndiaon1April2010.

ThisActfurtheremphasisedfreeandcompulsoryeducationforchildrenbetween6-14yearsofage.

KeyfeaturesoftheRTEAct,2009are:1. Itmakesitmandatoryonthe

concernedgoverningbodiestomakeprovisionforinclusiveeducation.

2. ItspecifiesthedutiesandresponsibilitiesoftheCentralGovernment,theState,localauthoritiesandparents.Therefore,thisActmakesprovisionoffreeandcompulsory‘education’asharedresponsibilityuntilelementaryeducation.

3. ItdelineatesnormsandstandardsforPupil-TeacherRatio(PTR),workinghoursforteachers,schoolworkingdays,andbuildingandinfrastructuraldevelopment.

4. Itadvocatesforthe“developmentofcurriculuminconsonancewiththevaluesenshrinedintheConstitution”andbuildingasystemthatpromoteschild-friendlyandchild-centredlearning.

(NUEPA,2014:5-6).2012 AmendmentofRTE

Act,2009in2012andboughttoeffectfrom1August2012.

KeyfeaturesinteraliaoftheRTEAct,2012are:1. Inclusionofchildrenwithdisabilityandprovidingthemfreeand

compulsoryeducation.2. Protectingrightsofminorities.

(NUEPA,2014:6).

Inall,successiveamendmentsoftheActsprovidedadditionalclarityonthedutiesoftheCentral

Government,theState,thelocalgoverningbodiesandparentsorguardiansandaddedimpetus

totheCentralGovernment’sgoaloftheuniversalizationofelementaryeducation(UEE).

14

Therefore, to clarify the implications of the Acts discussed above, what follows is a brief

descriptionof:firstly,theimportanceofNPE-1986/92indevelopingtheIndianeducationsystem

anditsrelevancetotheEFAframework.Andsecondly,therelevanceofpoliciesformulatedat

thenationalleveltothoseformulatedattheinternationallevel,particularlytowardsachieving

Goal-6oftheEFAframework.

2.3ThenatureoftheIndianeducationsystem

India has a federal structure comprising of 29 States and sevenUnion Territories (UTs)with

diverse socio-cultural contexts and widely varying geographical conditions. It is the largest

democracyintheworldwithapopulationof1.21billion(CensusofIndia,2011,inNUEPA,2014:

1).Hence,thepopulationsizestressesthepointthateven‘small’changeswillaffectverylarge

numbers of people. In addition, the country’s significant cultural and linguistic diversity has

implicationsforthenation’sdevelopmentandforitseducationsystem(UNESCO,2014:1).

ThepresentIndianeducationsystemisbroadlycategorisedintofourstagesofschooleducation-

theprimary,upperprimary,secondaryandhighersecondary(NUEPA,2014:3).Anationalsystem

ofschooleducationenvisageda10+2+3patternfor:firstly,forbringinguniformityintotheschool

system.Secondly,ensuringmobilityacrossStates.Thirdly,forcomparabilitywiththerestofthe

world. And lastly, for making eight years of elementary education compulsory. This pattern

originatedfromtherecommendationoftheEducationCommissionof1964-66.Itwasadopted

in1977.While the10+2yearsof study isdone in schoolsor collegesdependingon the local

condition,theremainingthreeyearsaredoneincolleges.Thefiveyearsofprimaryandthree

yearsofupperprimaryconstitutestheelementarystageofschool.However, thepre-primary

stage,whichisacriticalstageforlayingthefoundationforprimaryeducation,iscurrentlynota

part of the formal education structure (NUEPA, 2014: 3). Nevertheless, the government has

establishedpre-schoolsandhealth-carefacilitiesforchildrenbetween3-6yearsforfacilitating

aneasiertransitiontoprimaryschoollevel.

15

Table-2.2:ThesizeandshapeofschooleducationinIndia2013-2014

Source:NUEPA,2014

HavingelaboratedbroadlyonthestructuralpatternoftheIndianeducationsystem,Iwillnow

discussthepolicydocumentsthatwereformulatedbasedonthevariousConstitutionalActsas

wellastheprogrammaticinterventionsforachievingqualityprimaryeducation.

Learners(millions)

OoSC6-14years

(millions))

Gender Teachers(millions)

Numberofschools

Boys(millions)

Girls(millions)

Primary(ClassI-V) 132.4

8.15

68.6 63.8

7.72

858916

Upper-primary(ClassVI-VIII)

66.5 34.2 32.3 589796

Elementary(ClassI-VIII)

198.8 102.8 96.1 1448712

Secondary(IX-X)andHigher-secondary(XI-XII)

59.6 31.5 28.1 237,111

16

2.4Keypolicyframeworksforeducationdevelopment

ThefollowingsectiontracespolicydevelopmentfromtheNPE1986/92totheNCF-2005.The

purposeofthissectionistohighlightwhatmeasuresweretakenformakingprovisiontowards

promotingqualityeducation.

2.4.1NationalPolicyofEducation(NPE)1986/92Akeymilestonein India’smarchtowardsachievingthegoalofuniversalisationofelementary

education was the adoption of the NPE-1986, which was followed by publication of the

‘ProgrammeofAction (PoA)1986’ for its implementation (Chauhan, 2009: 229).Also, India’s

educationalgoalsandstrategieswerere-examinedandwerereframedintheNationalPolicyon

Education (NPE) (UNESCO, 2015b; 1). The NPE 1986 as modified in 1992 embraces a

comprehensiveviewofUEE(Chauhan,2009:229). Itemphasisesthat“uptoagiven level,all

students,irrespectiveofcaste,creed,locationorsex,haveaccesstoeducationofcomparative

quality”(NUEPA,2014:6).Hence,itembracesinclusiveeducation;adult,formalandnon-formal;

elementaryeducation(upto14yearsofage)andearlychildhoodcareandeducation(ECCE).The

policy document also argues for a “substantial improvement in the quality of education”

(Chauhan,2009:229).

Whilethereformin1992ofNPE-1986wasaimedatintegratingthenecessaryactionsvitalfor

thedevelopmentofvariousfacetsofeducation,theEFAprogramme,whichisaninternational

programmeattractedspecialattentionfrom2000onwards(Chauhan,2009:229).Byformulating

specificgoalsandtargets,EFAactedasa‘catalyst’ininitiatingcountryspecificprogrammes,SSA-

2001-02,inmembercountriesincludingIndia(Chauhan,2009:229).Inall,whiletheEFAgoals

were not directly adopted by the National Policy of India, the aims and objectives of NPE

resonatedwiththeobjectivesoftheEFAprogramme,whilebearingthelocalcontextinmind.

(TheachievementsinrelationtothesixEFAgoalscanbeseeninAppendix-1).

17

A programmatic intervention for the universalization of elementary education and fostering

quality education was initiated. This was the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). The section that

followsdelineates certain crucial featuresof the SSA that looks intoquality educationat the

primary level.Also,howthis interventionaddressesprovisionof ‘qualityeducation’hasbeen

highlighted.

2.4.2SarvaShikshaAbhiyan(SSA)

Post-1992,with the reform of NPE 1986, achieving universalization of elementary education

(UEE) gained further impetus. A number of schemes/programmes were launched, some

particularlyforupperprimaryeducation(MHRD,2004:1.1.2).Keyamongstthemwasthesingle

umbrella5programme,theSSAinitiatedin2001-02bytheCentralGovernmentforachievingUEE.

It was an endeavour towards filling the vacuum for quality improvement in elementary

education,whileincorporatingallthedistrictsinthecountry(MHRD,2004:1.1.2).Althoughitis

a Centrally sponsored programme, the scheme is implemented in partnershipwith State/UT

Governments(NUEPA,2014:9).

Thekeygoalsof SSAare: (i)universalaccessand retentionof children in school; (ii)bridging

gender,regionalandsocialgapsatelementaryeducationallevels;and(iii)elementaryeducation

ofsatisfactoryquality(MHRD,2004:1.1.5;NUEPA,2014:9).Thesegoalswere linkedtotime-

boundtargetsandsimilartoEFAgoals2,5and6,wereadoptedbytheSSA(UNESCO,2015b:4).

It is crucial to address here that SSAwas designated as the primary vehicle for realising the

provisionscontainedintheRTEAct2009(NUEPA,2014:50).Thiscollaborativeeffortassistedin

facilitatingqualityeducationthroughincreasedaccess,enrolment,andretention.

5TheSSAcoversothereducationprogrammeslikeDistrictPrimaryEducationProgramme(DPEP),LokJumbishandOperationBlackboard(MHRD,2004:1.1.1).

18

Table2.3belowshowstheenrolmentanddropoutratesforSSAschools.

Table-2.3:ProgressasreportedundertheSSAprogramme

Grades Enrolment

Drop-OutRates(%) Numberofschools

Primary(I-V)

129,992

36.3

47.4

790,640

UpperPrimary(VI-VIII)

65,780 401,079

Secondary(IX-X)

36,961 131,287

SeniorSecondary(XI-XII)

22,153 Nodata 102,558

(Refer:MHRD,2014:4,8)

Nevertheless, SSA demands further attention as issues related to access, equity and quality

education still remain. Forexample, as the table shows,36.3%of learners’dropoutbetween

elementaryandsecondarylevels,and47.4%dropoutbetweensecondaryandseniorsecondary

school.

2.4.2.1ProvisionofqualityeducationunderSSA TheonsetofSSAaddedimpetustowardsimprovingqualityandefficiencyattheschooland/or

classroomlevelthroughtheprovisionof"‘satisfactoryquality’[education]inachievingthegoal

ofeducationforall” (MHRD,2004:4.2.0.1,myparentheses).Thevarious initiativestakenare

monitoredbyanappraisalteam6.Theyassessfrombothalong-andshort-termperspective,the

successofcrucialcomponentsthataffectqualityeducation(MHRD,2004:4.2.0.1).Components

6TheappraisalteamconsistsofrepresentativesofGovernmentofIndiawhoareapprovedbytheProjectApprovalBoardheadedbySecretary(EE&L),GovernmentofIndia.

19

delineatedbytheSSAforqualityimprovementswithinschoolsand/orclassroomssettingsareas

follows(MHRD,2004:4.2.0.2):

(a)“VisionofQualityElementaryEducation

(b)CurriculumRenewalPlan

(c)TeachingLearningMaterial(includingtextbooks)

(d)TeacherTraining-perspectiveandannualplan/calendar

(e)Teaching-LearningProcess

(f)AcademicResourceSupportStructure

(g)MonitoringofQualityAspects”

Hence, it can be inferred that the SSA advocates for curriculum renewal,while applying the

guidingprinciplesof the“NationalCurriculumFrameworkononehandand incorporatingthe

State's visionofquality elementaryeducationon theother” (MHRD,2004: 4.2.2.3). It rightly

arguesthatthecurriculumfollowedinschoolsisanimportantdeterminantandoneofthedirect

waysofpromotingqualityeducation(ibid:4.2.2.1).Moreover,arevisionofcurriculumdirectly

requires adjustments suitable for learners coming fromdiverse socio-economicbackgrounds.

Hence,theSSAfocusesondecentralisingthecurriculumtomakeitrelevantandspecifictothe

local context. Nevertheless, because both teachers and districts are under-prepared or not

trained, this continues to be a challenge at the district level for integrating district specific

elements(ibid:4.2.2.3).Hence,thedocumentarguesfor“review,reformandrenewal”ofthe

curriculumundersuchcontextsforpromotingqualityeducation(MHRD,2004:4.2.2.2).Given

their,foreffectiveimplementationofthecurriculumtheSSAadvocateseffectiveplanningthat

incorporatestargetgroups,teachersandtraininginstitutesatthedifferentlevels.

In the section that follows, one of the key methods for providing quality education - the

curriculum,asarguedintheSSAandtheEFA2015reviewdocument,ishighlighted.

20

2.4.3TheNationalCurriculumFramework2005(NCF-2005)SincetherenewalofNPE-1986,effortshadbeeninvestedtowardsestablishinganationalsystem

of education within the NPE-1986’s broad framework. Furthermore, decentralisation of the

curriculumforincreasedspecificitytothelocalcontext,iswhatSSAadvocates.Hence,NCF-2005

preparedbytheNationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining(NCERT)aimsatdoing

justthat.NCF-2005outlinesbroadprinciples forStatesandUTstofollowwhiledesigningthe

detailed syllabus, textbooks and making appropriate teaching-learning materials available in

schoolsfromearlychildhoodtothehighersecondarystageofeducation(NUEPA,2014:87).

Accordingtothisreport,NCF-2005aimsatbuildingasystemandschoolsthatare“child-friendly

and inclusive”(NUEPA,2014:87).CrucialgoalsoftheNCF-2005,apartfromthoseoutlined in

Chapter1are:

• Itadvocatesinnovativepedagogicpractices,ratherthanatop-downapproach,formaking

learninganexcitingexperience(p.41).

• Itaimsateliminatinggenderandcastebiasesbyproposingthatteachersdesignlessons

thataregenderandcastesensitive.Thishasbeendemonstratedbyprovidinganexample

of“TalkingPictures”(p.25).

• It recommends the promotion of inclusive education and flexibility of assessment

methods(pp.71-72).

• It argues for incorporating design features into the curriculum that would assist

educatorswithorganisingclassroomteachinginconsonancewiththechild’smilieu.

• It advocates designing curriculum on the principles of NCF-2005 for reflecting the

commitmenttoUniversalElementaryEducation(UEE)(p.5).

• TheNCF-2005aimstobringaboutasignificantshiftintheteachingandlearning

processesbyadvocatingfora‘constructivistapproach’,whichisresponsivetoeach

child’sneed(p.17).

(NCF2005)

21

This lastgoalwhichaimsatadoptingaconstructivistapproachtoteaching-learningprocesses

responsivetoeachchild’sneed iscentral tothereform(NUEPA,2014:87),andakeypartof

movingawayfromthe‘textbooksandtests’whichpreviouslydescribedtheNCF-2000.

Theeducationalaims,identifiedbyNCF-2005,asoutlinedintheEFA2015NationalReviewreport

document also outlines crucial social values that learners should learn. They are firstly, a

commitment towards developing equality, justice, respect for human dignity, freedom,

democratic values, secularismand rights and concern for thewell-being of others. Secondly,

beingflexibleinrespondingtonewsituationsbydisplayingwillingnesstounlearnandrelearn.

Andlastly,developingaestheticskills(NUEPA,2014:87).

Consequently textbooks, syllabus, pedagogic practices and assessment frameworks were

designedbasedontheseguidelinesembeddedintheNCF-2005.ThiswasdoneattheCentral

Government level in order to facilitate curriculum reform at the State level. NCF-2005

acknowledgesthediversityoftheIndiancontextandinsistsupon“amenuofqualitycurricula

packagesbedeveloped”insteadofonetextbookforallinaparticularState(NUEPA,2014:87).

ItiscrucialtohighlightherethattheNCF-2005isnotmandatoryforthevariousStatestofollow.

Nevertheless,curriculumandtextbooksdevelopedbytheNCERTinlightoftheNCFisfollowed

directly in 15 States and UTs while 14 states and UTs use modified versions of the NCERT

curriculum, syllabus and textbooks (Dhawan, 2013: n.p.). Given that there are 457.3million

learnersand1,448,712schoolstheenormityandcomplexityofthistaskisreadilyapparentand

isdiscussedinfurtherdetailinChapter5.

NonethelessthebroadparametersassociatedwithNCF-2005discussedaboveremainandwill

bemorefullydiscussedwithparticularreferencetoprimaryschoolsinChapter5.

22

2.6Conclusion

HavingdelineatedkeydevelopmentsthatguidedthedevelopmentofeducationinIndia;Iwould

like to reiterate that thevariousConstitutionalActswerecrucial forprogress ineducationas

weredevelopmentssuchastheNPE-1986/92andtheSSAprogrammewhichweresignificantfor

changesmadetowardsprovidingbasicandqualityeducation.

Thediscussionsaboveprovideaninsightonthekeyaspectsinlegislation,from1950to2012for

improvingissuesaroundretention,inclusivity,quality,formalandnon-formaleducation,adult

educationanduniversalisingelementaryeducationbetween6-14yearsofageforchildren.And

whiletherehavebeenimprovementsinkeyGoal-2andGoal-3therearestillmajordifficulties

aroundretentionwithhighdroprates.AndevenfortheSSAprogramme,specificallydesignedto

addresstheaboveissueswearestillseeinghighdropoutratesfromelementarytosecondary

(36.3%)andfromsecondarytohighersecondary(47.4%).Hence,thegovernmentisfacedwitha

difficultypositionofhavingtosimultaneouslydealwiththeissueofaccess(whichononelevelis

atechnicalissue)andcurriculumreformwhichwasdesignedforbetterqualitylearning.

Inthenextchapter,Chapter3,thevariousdefinitionsusedtodefine‘quality’ininternationaland

nationaldocumentswillbedelineated.Also,thecausalrelationshipbetweenmisinterpretation

ofpolicy textsand formationofgapsandspaceswillbehighlighted.This in turn,will further

elaborateonthecausesofthecomplexityassociatedwiththepolicyprocess.

23

ChapterThree:The‘Quality’Problem

3.1IntroductionAlthoughtheprovisionof‘qualityeducation’isadvocatedandpromotedatinternationalandthe

national level there is much contestation and many theoretical debates surrounding the

definitionof‘quality’amongstvariousagencies.TheseincludetheEuropeanCommission(EC),

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) through the EFA

programmeandtheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)(2014).

Thischapterisorganisedintotwosub-sections.Thefirstsub-sectioninvolvesanin-depthlookat

internationalframeworksforqualityandits influenceonnationalpolicyfor India.Thiswillbe

donethroughareviewoftheprogrammelaunchedbytheCentralgovernment.Thesecondsub-

sectionexamines thepossible impactofpoliciesbyapplyingBall (1993)andTrowler’s (2003)

analyticperspectivesonanalysingpolicyprocessesattheinternationallevel.Thiswillbeusedas

aguideforunderstandingthecauseofcomplexityintheterm‘policy’.Alsohighlightedwillbe

contestingviewsandideologiesattheformulationstagethataffectdesiredoutcomes.

Thesesub-sectionsareusedtodeveloptheoreticallenseswhicharediscussedingreaterdetail

in Chapter 4. With curriculum reform as one of the indicators for the provision of quality

educationbytheCentralGovernment,thetheoreticallensdeveloped,willassistindelineating

thesuccessesand/orlimitationsofthenationalcurriculumpolicydocument,specificallyforthe

primarylevel.

24

3.2Defining‘quality’

3.2.1Perspectiveson‘quality’fromtheinternationalliteratureQualityisawidelycontestedissueineducationandasSayed(1997)putsit,theconcept‘quality’

is elusive. It is frequentlyusedbutnever addressed in amanner thatwould reflectdifferent

“ideological,socialandpoliticalvalues”(Sayed,1997,inBarrettet.al.,2006:2).Also,theterm

‘quality’hasbeenwidelyarguedandcontrolledbythosewho“operateinthedomainofpolicy,

accountabilityandfundingratherthaninthearenaofpractice”(Alexander,2008:3).

Barrettet.al.(2006)inthisreviewofpolicydocumentsusefullyarguethattherearetwobroad

approachestounderstandingquality:firstly,thehumanistapproach.Thisapproachpaysgreater

emphasistoeducationalprocessesi.e.howteachingandlearningtakesplacewithinclassrooms,

andtheholisticdevelopmentofthechild-areaswhicharedifficulttomeasure(Beeby,1966).

Andsecondly,theeconomistapproachwhichislargelyconcernedwithquantitativemeasurable

outputs (Barrett et. al., 2006: 2). These measurable outputs are usually “enrolment ratios…

retentionrates,ratesofreturnoninvestmentineducationintermsofearningsandcognitive

achievementsasmeasuredinnationalorinternationaltests”(Barrettet.al.,2006:2;seealso

Figure4.1:43).Inaddition,thesecondapproachhasbeenidentifiedwiththeWorldBank(WB)

whichjustifiesitseducationloansinrelationtofinancialreturns(Jones,1992,inBarrettet.al.,

2006:3).

WhilethesetwoapproachesarenotmutuallyexclusiveandwhiletheEFAdoesincludea“broad

rangeofpersonal and social learningoutcomes” (Barrettet. al., 2006: iii), theassessmentof

achievingqualityhaslargelybeenrestrictedtothose“cognitivelearningoutcomesthatareeasy

tomeasure using pen and paper tests” (Barrettet. al., 2006: iii). Similarly, Alexander (2008)

commentingontheEFAGlobalMonitoringReportdiscoursearguesthatthediscoursesdonot

discussqualityinitsrealsense.Hecontendsthat‘quality’hasbeen“definedintermsofoutcomes

rather than processes” (Alexander, 2008: 6). These contested discussions and/or views are

discussedbelow.

25

Asnotedinpolicydocumentation,themeaningoftheterm‘quality’hasoftenbeenstudiedin

termsofhowitcanbemeasuredratherthanhowitcanbeconceivedinitsactualsense.Thatis

why‘indicators’havecometooccupyacentralplaceinthediscourseonquality(Alexander,2008:

6).Alexander(2008)referstothisasadjectivevs.noun.Throughthe‘adjective’formofquality

hereferstothereadilyquantifiableformsof‘quality’ineducation,whichisrepresentedinthe

formof ‘indicators’. This areahasbeendominatedprimarily in thepolicy andmarket arena.

Similarly,throughthe‘noun’formofquality,herefersto“attributes,characteristicsorproperty”

suchas,‘high’or‘low’qualitythatcannotbeeasilyquantified(p.11).

Forexample,afew“worldeducationindicators”delineatedintheOECD(2014)documentare:

the Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning; Access to Education,

ParticipationandProgression;FinancialandHumanResources InvestedinEducation;andThe

LearningEnvironmentandOrganizationofSchool.Theseindicatorsprovideabroadframework

ofquality,whichcanbeelaboratedfurther.Forexample,indicatorswithrespectto‘Impactof

learning’, ‘access’ and ‘learning environment are: completion rate of upper-secondary and

tertiaryeducationforstudents,teachingandlearningtimeandpupil-teacherratios(P-Tratio).In

thismodelthefocusisoninputsandoutcomesbutitdoesnotcapturethenounformofquality,

thatistheprocesses(thehumanistapproach).

Asimilarpattern isseen intheEC(2000) listofquality indicator.Theyare (Alexander,2008):

firstly,Attainment,whichisinclusiveof,“Mathematics,Reading,Science,ICT,Foreignlanguages,

learning to learn, Civics” (2008: 4). Secondly, Success and transition, which is inclusive of,

“Dropout rates, Completion of upper secondary education and Participation in tertiary

education” (2008: 4). Thirdly,monitoring of education,which is inclusive of, “Evaluation and

steering of school education and Parental participation” (2008: 4). And lastly, Resources and

structures,whichcircumscribes,“Educationandtrainingofteachers,Participationinpre-primary

education,NumbersofstudentspercomputerandEducationalexpenditureperstudent”(2008:

4).Alexander (2008) rightlyargues that theECquality indicatorsare“construedas inputand

outcomewithprocessnowheretobeseen” (2008:4).Where ‘processes’suchas,competent

26

teachers,activepedagogicalpractices,assessments,classsizeandlearningtimeareconsidered

therearisesobviousmeasurementorconceptualissues.Theseincludethewashbackeffectof

pedagogicalpracticesrevertingbacktoteachingtothetestkindofeducationalpractices.This

resultsinaimingtowardstheholisticdevelopmentofthelearnersufferinglimitations.

A further drive towards the economistic model has been the increasing marketisation of

education.AsSayedargues, thishas resulted inqualitybeingdefined in termsof “efficiency,

valueformoneyandmeetingthedemandsof‘educationalconsumers’”(Sayed,1997inBarrett

et.al.,2006:5).

By contrast, Barrettet.al. (2006) argue that judgement of quality based onwhat happens in

schools and in the classroom requires a wider approach7. These approaches are developing

cognitive skills, learning literacyandnumeracy,general knowledgeandattitudesandcultural

values.Thisresultsinnotionsofdemocraticschoolgovernance,learner-centredpedagogiesand

inclusiveeducationenteringqualityeducation(p.2).However,literacyandnumeracyhavebeen

givenprecedenceoverothersubjectsduetointernationaltesting(p.2).

ItshouldbenotedthatdespitethisfocusonQuantitativevariables,asfarbackas1996,theDelors

Report,containingUNESCO’svisionforaglobaleducation,developedaframewhichdidaccount

forprocessvariables.Itdelineatesfourimportantpillarsofeducationwhichessentiallycontains

UNESCO’svisionforaglobaleducation.Theyare:“Learningtoknow;Learningtodo;Learningto

live together; and Learning to be” (pp.20-21). This report accounts for different aspects of

education. They are: firstly, developing an understanding of others and their surroundings.

Secondly,knowledgeasmeansandasanendforthepossibilityof lifelongeducation.Thirdly,

7Forinstance,recommendingteacherstodesigncontentfordevelopingcognitiveskillsoflearners,hasbeenadoptedatthenationallevelbytheIndiangovernment’sMHRDasoutlinedbyBarrettet.al.(2006).Hence,curriculumreformplan,beingacrucialfactorforaddressingquality,specificallyattheclassroomlevel,andpreviousstudiesnothavingdelveddeeperintothisaspect.Thisfurthercompelledmetoconcentrateoncurriculumreformstrategies.

27

developing competency and aptitude for teamwork. And lastly, development of individual

potential. Hence, the Delors report (1996) underlines all of the skills that are essential for

enablingachildtoenterthelabourmarketandforpersonaldevelopment.Theabovementioned

fourpillars,onwhichtheUNESCOreportsarebased,areincludedintheEducationforAll2015

NationalReviewReportdocumentofIndia.

ThischangeindiscoursehadalsoappearedinWorldBankdocumentswhere,“‘Quality’hastaken

theplaceof‘improvement’.Although‘quality’stilldefinedintermsoflearnerachievement,the

definitionofwhat is tobeachievedhasbeen refined.Thishasbeendone inadirection that

reflects international EFA documents. This document argues that: “The long-term goal in

education is nothing less than to ensure everyone completes a basic education of adequate

quality, acquires foundation skills—literacy, numeracy, reasoning and social skills such as

teamwork—andhasfurtheropportunitiestolearnadvancedskillsthroughoutlife,inarangeof

post-basiceducationsettings"(HumanDevelopmentNetwork,2002:431inBarrettet.al.,2006:

7). The World Bank has continued to invest in primary education since the 1990s and has

“criticisedprogrammesformeasuringqualityintermsofinputs(infrastructure,textbooks,and

soon)andoutputs(e.g.numberofteacherstrained)andnotgivingenoughemphasistolearning

outcomes(measurableimprovementsinlearner’scognitiveachievement)”(Barrettet.al.,2006:

8).Thishighlightstheshiftinstudiestowardsoutcomesasindicatorsofqualityeducationand

alsoillustrateshowdespitetherhetoric,theprocesselementsareside-lined.Perhapsthemost

importantdocumentistheEFAGlobalMonitoringReportof2005whichspecificallyfocussedon

theneedforqualityalongsidequantity.Thisisdiscussedbelow.

3.2.2TheEFAGlobalMonitoringReport(2005)EducationforAll:TheQualityImperative

The 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report focuses on the quality of education and assesses

progressmadetowardstheEFAgoals.Inmovingtowardsanunderstandingofqualitythereport

outlines various philosophical positions in order to clarify the debate. Various philosophies

28

guidingthemeaningoftheterm‘quality’havetheirrootsindifferenttraditionsofeducational

thought.LockeandRousseauwhofollowedahumanistictraditionassertthatallpeopleareborn

equalandsubsequentinequalityisaproductofcircumstances(UNESCO,2004:32).Thistrainof

thoughthasimpactedeminenttheorists,suchas,JohnDeweyandJeanPiagetwhoencouraged

activeandparticipatoryrolesforchildrenthroughaconstructivistapproach(p.32).Anapproach

converse to the above is behaviourist theory (UNESCO, 2004: 33). This argues that human

behaviourcanbemoulded,predictedandcontrolledthroughrewardandresponse(e.g. tests

and examination). Nonetheless, very few educational theorists have been influenced by

behaviouristtheory,suchasIvanPavlovandBurrhus.F.Skinner(UNESCO,2004:33).However,

elementsofthisphilosophyoflearningcanbeobservedformanycountries8inteacher-training

programme,curriculaandclassroominstruction(p.33).

Thehumanistapproachtounderstandingqualityeducationisapplicabletomyareaofstudyas

itaddressestheissueoftheimportanceofqualityprimaryeducation.Also,ithasbeenexplored

to a relatively lesser extent. Furthermore, the guiding principles of the NCF-2005 takes a

humanisticstancefortheoveralldevelopmentofthechild.Itiscrucialtoaddressherethatthe

Central Government through curriculum reform strategy aims at enabling children to “make

senseoflifeanddeveloptheirpotential…[for]pursuingapurposefullifewhilerecognisingthe

rightofothers todoso” (NCF2005:2,myparentheses).Hence, theaboveapproachdirectly

addressestheissuethatIwillbeexploringfurtherinmyresearch.

Notably,therearesomealternativethoughtsoneducationthatemphasiseself-reliance,equality

and rural employability from Gandhi and Nyerere9. The education philosophy of Gandhi

describededucationasanimportanttoolforself-developmentofanindividualinthreeareas,

8TheNCF-2005documenthasGandhianphilosophiesatthecoreofitsplanning(NCF2005:3).Hence,thiscallsforfutureattentionwhichwillbeaddressedinChapter5ofthisthesis.9JuliusKambarageNyerereservedasthefirstpresidentofTanzania.Hisarticulationofpolitical,socialandeconomicrhetoricembodiedAfricanvalues.

29

social,politicalandspiritual(Dasgupta,1996:136-138).Ontheotherhand,theschoolofthought

thatNyerereadvocatedforaimedatsocialwelfareinitiatives.Theprinciplehasanegalitarian

approachtowealthdistribution,politicalstabilityandastrongsenseofnationalunity(EveB.St-

CyrinSynonym,n.d.).

Fromthisreview,the2005EFAreportoutlinesthreeprinciplesforexamining‘quality’inlightof

variousapproaches statedabove.The first recognizes learners' cognitivedevelopmentas the

important indicator and the second emphasises “education's role in promoting values and

attitudes of responsible citizenship and in nurturing creative and emotional development”

(UNESCO,2004:17).Behindtheselieathirdsetofsystemicindicatorssuchas,publicspending

on education, P-T ratio, teacher qualification, mastery of curriculum by educators, teacher

absenteeismandtheHIV/AIDSpandemic.Thisapproachisusedbyanumberofcountriessuch

as India, Mauritius, Uganda, and South Africa to a greater extent for ascertaining quality

education.

Thereportprovidesacomprehensiveframeworkforencompassingissuesofaccess,processand

outcomesaroundeducationalquality.Thevariousvariablesinfluencingmappingoutkeypolicies

forimprovingteachingandlearningprocessare(UNESCO,2004:35-37):

● Learner characteristics: which includes, aptitude, perseverance, school readiness, prior

knowledgeandbarrierstolearning.

● Context:includessocietalvaluesandattitudes,economicstatus,nationalpoliciesongoals

andstandardsandcurriculumandteachers.

● Inputs:includesteachingandlearning,whichinturndependsonhumanresources(teachers,

principals) andmaterial resource (textbooks, learningmaterials, classroom, libraries, and

schoolfacilities)andschoolgovernance.

● Outcomes:expressedintermsofmeasurablelearningobjectives,suchasexaminationand

testsperformanceaswellassocialandeconomicgains(Creativeandemotionalskills,Values,

Socialbenefits).

30

The report also highlights important factors based on research evidence that determine

educationalquality,which,inturn,assistsindesigningpoliciesensuringbetterlearning(p.39).

Thefactorsidentifiedwere(Barrettet.al.,2006:10-11):

● Cognitiveachievements:linkingcognitivegainsfrombasiceducation,byprotectionagainst

HIV/AIDS,andinternationalachievementtestsandnationalexitexams(p.10).

● Pupil/Teacherratio

● Teachereducationandexperience

● Teachersalary

● Schooleffectivenessthroughstrongleadership,secureschoolandclassroomenvironment

● Instructionaltime

● Educationspending

Nevertheless,thereportignoreshowteachingandlearningtakeplaceinsidetheclassroomas

oneofthefactorsforensuringqualityeducationanditdownplaysthehumanisttradition.

Inall,weareoftenseeinghowtheseelementsareover-ridden,oftenbytheexamimperative

which ismoreofa rewardstimulusapproachtoeducation.This furtherdrivesdown intothe

curriculumandpedagogyviateachtothetest,crammedschools,andchalk-and-talkmethods.

Whilewehavenoblegoalsononehand,theinterfacebetweentheschoolingsystem,thefurther

educationsystemandthelabourmarketisdysfunctionaltothedegreetothatemployersuse

examsasamajorselectionmechanism.Hence,examsbecomehighstakewhichthenimpactson

theteachinginlateryearsofschoolinparticular.Andifprogressfromsecondary(grade-10)to

higher-secondary (grade-11) level is alsobased, as in India, onexams then there is a further

backwasheffectdowntheprimarysystem.Therefore,evenifweacceptthathigherlevelsofthe

educationsystemwillbespecialisedandfocusedonspecificsubjects,intheprimarylevelofthe

foundations,wearealsoseeingexaminationpressurewhichislikelytocounteractalltheseother

humanisticgoals.Hence,thesignificanceofdefiningqualityinaspecificway,inturn,highlights

the importance of addressing teaching and learning as a crucial factor in achieving quality

education.

31

The report also highlights key policy interventions for improving teaching and learning in

collaboration with key actors. Greater emphasis towards improvement has been placed on

formalschooleffectiveness.Certainsectionsrequiringfutureinterventionsare(UNESCO,2004;

Barrettet.al.,2006:11):

● Learners(astheyaretheheartofteachingandlearning):throughafurtheremphasisongood

inclusiveapproachandalternativestoformaleducation(pp.143-146).

● Teaching and Learning: focusing on appropriate goals for the curriculum, appropriate

approachtoeffectivepedagogy,developingrelevantcontent,soundassessment,effective

learningtime,carefulchoiceoflanguage(pp.146-160).

● Better teachers: through teacher training, improved salaries and teacher recruitments

(pp.161-168).

● Betterschools:betterleadershipandgreaterautonomy(pp.168-177).

● Combatingcorruption,improvedaccountabilityandprofessionalassociation.

The report alsooutlinespriorities for action suited for resource-constrained countries. These

include“schooleffectiveness;strongpartnershipamonggovernmentdepartmentsresponsible

forearlychildhoodcareandeducation;literacyandhealth;andahighernationalspendingon

basiceducation.”(Barrettet.al.,2006:11).

Astrikingandfundamentalcorrectivethatsurfacesfromthe2005EFAReportisthat“quantity

andqualityineducationarecomplementsratherthansubstitutes”(Alexander,2008:10).This

representsamajorstepforward.However,readilymeasurableindicatorsweretoalargeextent

usedfordefiningquality.Thisresultedinqualitybeingdefinedintermsofquantity.Alignedwith

this idea, the Report contends that “Countries that are farthest from achieving goals 1 to 5

[comprising of quantitativemeasures] are also farthest from achieving goal 6 [comprising of

qualitativeindicators]"(UNESCO,2004:16,myparentheses).Theissuethatremainsis,whyis

thisquantitativeapproachpursued?Fundamentallytheanswerliesintheverycomplexityofthe

ideaof‘quality’.Thisisdiscussedbelow.

32

3.2.3Thecomplexitiesattheheartof‘quality’

As discussed above, the international literature addresses quality with respect to indicators.

Theseindicatorshaverephrasedwhatqualityactuallymeans.Whileearliermodelsconcentrated

oninputsandoutcomes,theintroductionof‘process’intothesystembyorganisations,suchas,

theWorldBankandthe2005EFAQualityImperativereport,hasresultedinfurthercomplicating

whatqualityentailsbyaddressingitinaveryvaguemanner.Hence,theinclusionofprocessinto

measuringqualitycausedonly those factors tobestudiedthatcouldbeeasilymeasuredand

accountedfor.

Nevertheless,laterdevelopments,suchasthe2005EFAQualityImperativereportdiscussesthe

term‘quality’ingreaterdepth.It incorporatescontext,input,processandoutcomesbutdoes

notdescribe thevariousdimensionsofeducationquality.This, in turn,opens space forwide

interpretation by ground actors resulting in contesting views and opinions. In addition, as

Alexander(2008:10)arguesincorporationofprocessforensuringqualityeducationinsomeway

ortheotherreallyreflectsinputsorcontextualvariables.Oneofthemajorconcernsofusing

indicatorsinordertoaccountforqualitybyinternationalorganisations,suchas,theUNESCOand

theWB,asarguedbyAlexander(2008:21)isthatitadvocatesastandardmethodofpromoting

quality,whichistobereportedbymembercountries(203).Thisremainstrueirrespectiveofthe

context.

Conceptually andmore importantly, very few references have beenmade about curriculum

reform and its relevance to quality. The 2005 EFA Report mentions curriculum reform very

broadly, just as a pointer,with very little specificity. Similarly,UNESCOand theWBmention

curriculumreformasthebaseonwhichthesuccessofacountry’seducationsystemdepends.

Buthow this is tobeachievedhasnomention.Furthermore, itsexactdefinitionandwhat it

shouldcontainhasnotbeendelineated.Consequently, thevarious indicatorsdonotdemand

curriculumreformtobedirectlyenacted.Itispreciselytheareaofactualcurriculumreformthat

thisthesisanalysesinordertomovemorecloselytoanassessmentofquality.

33

TodothisIreturntoAlexander’s(2008)argumentofdefiningqualityinitstotality,bytakingboth

its‘noun’and‘adjective’form.Alexanderthroughthisarguesthatbygivingprecedencetothe

‘adjective’ form of quality such as, “’quality education’ or ‘quality imperative’ where quality

impliesastandardorlevelofqualitytobedesired”particularlyinthepolicyandmarketarena,

resultsinprecedenceofindicatorsofthestandardorlevelofqualitytobedesired(Alexander,

2008:11).Throughthe‘noun’formof‘quality’ineducationAlexander(2008)refers,“to…either

an attribute [such as, ‘teaching quality’], property, or characteristic inwhich case it is value

neutral,oritcanmeanadegreeofexcellence,asin‘high’orindeed‘low’quality”(Alexander,

2008:11).ThisdefinitionofAlexander(2008)encompassespoliticaldefinitions,bureaucraticand

administrativedecisionsaswellasglobalandeducationaldefinitions.

InIndiaakeytoolformeasuringqualityistheQualityMonitoringTool(QMT)designedbythe

Indianeducationalboard,theNationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining10(NCERT),

forimplementingqualityeducation.Thisisdiscussedbelow.

3.2.4 The National Council of Educational Research and Training(NCERT)QualityMonitoringTools(QMT)

A more comprehensive and ambitious approach to indicator-based framework in India is

provided by the NCERT in conjunction with the Central Government’s Ministry of Human

Resource Development (MHRD). This framework defines educational quality and outlines

instrumentsor ‘qualitymonitoringtools’ (QMTs).TherevisedQMTsprovideacomprehensive

indicator-basedframeworkfordefiningeducationalqualityandsetsofinstrumentsor“quality

monitoringtools”forapplicationatdifferentlevels:

10NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining(NCERT)isanautonomousorganisationsetup

in1961bytheGovernmentofIndiatoassistandadvisetheCentralandStateGovernmentsonpoliciesandprogrammesforqualitativeimprovementinschooleducation.

34

● School

● Cluster11

● Block12

● Districtand

● State

TheQMTswereanambitiousapproachtoensuringqualityatthefivelevelsthus,illustratingthe

processas“localandhighly specific”,mappedoutduring2005-06 (Alexander,2008:12).The

qualityfacetofelementaryeducationissupervisedbyNCERTundertheSSAprogramme(NCERT,

2013: i). The revised QMTs comprise of seven simplified formats for monitoring quality

education.Oneamongstthemisthe“SchoolMonitoringFormat(SMF)"(NCERT,2013:1;Refer

Appendix-4). The key quality dimensions for improving quality of elementary education

incorporatedundertheseformatsare(NCERT,2013:i):

● “children’sattendance;

● communitysupportandparticipation;

● teacherandteacherpreparation;

● curriculumandTeachingandLearningMaterials;

● classroomprocesses;and

● learners’assessment,monitoringandsupervision.”

11TheCentralGovernmenthasadoptedamulti-tieredapproachfordifferentlevelsfromschoolsthrough

toStatesformonitoringprovisionofqualityeducationundertheSSA.AttheClusterResourceCentre(CRC)coordinatorsconsolidatetheschoollevelformatthatisfilledupattheschoollevel.Basedontheinformationcollectedonschoolactivities;theCRCcoordinatorprovidesnecessaryfeedbackfortheimprovementoftheschoolsandteachers(NCERT,2013:vi).

12TheformatfromtheClusterResourceCentre’s(CRCs)aresenttotheBlockResourceCentre(BRC).

ThisformatisanalysedandnecessaryfeedbackprovidedtotheCRCs(NCERT,2013:vii).

35

The QMT framework thus incorporates elements of input, context, process and outcomes

(Alexander, 2008: 12). Yet, confusion at the heart of educational quality based on indicators

remains.InaccordwithAlexander(2008:10),“wheredirectmeasuresarenotavailable,proxies

are used; and theproxies for process quality tend to be, again, outcomesor inputs.”As the

document shows (Refer Appendix-4) readilymeasurable indicators have led to quality being

definedintermsofquantity.Alexander(2008)arguesthatoneofthemajordrawbacksofthisis

thattheeducationalquality indicatorsareseldomjustifiedbyreferencetoresearch.Acritical

analysisontheQMTsdelineatingitsstrengthsand/orweaknessesappearsinChapter5.

Hence,havingoutlinedthedifficultiesaroundtheterm‘quality’atthenationalandinternational

level;Iwillnowhighlighttheeffectofthesecontestationsontheformulation-implementation-

reformulationprocessofthepolicycycle.

3.3AnalysingpolicyThefocusofthischapteraround‘quality’ isrelatedtoTrowler(2003),Ball’s(1993,2015)and

Lall’s(2007)argumentonpolicyasa‘mish-mash’ofcontestingviewsandideas.Theseviewswill

setupaframeworkofenquirywhichwillactasaguideintheorganisationofmyanalysis.

Educationpolicyisoftencharacterisedasahighlycontestedfieldthatisdynamicandsubjected

to multiple interpretations (Trowler, 2003). The question then raised is “whose values are

validated in policy, and conversely,whose arenot?” (Ball, 2012 inOmercajic, 2015: 12). The

linking of this process with various ideologies influences how policy-formulation and

implementation unfold. These ideologies often influence policy outcomes. Moving further,

‘implementation’ involves the linkingofaproblemto the solution.This could result ineither

achievingthedesiredoutcomesorfurtheraggravatingtheproblem.Thisineffectivelinking,often

a consequence of limited resources, inadequate funding, and/or qualified support by either

parties, impactson thesuccessful implementationofpolicy.This createsapolicy ‘gap’,often

36

referredtoasthepolicyimplementationgap.Inall,‘policy’asadefinition,isvastandsubjectively

ambiguous;itisimmenselydependentonthecontextinwhichoneisusingtheterm.

Inordertounderstandwhy‘policy’issubjectivelyambiguous,thelensesusedbyTrowler,2003;

Ball, 1993, 2015; and Lall, 2007 who have applied different analytical tools to study policy

processesarediscussedbelow.Trowler(2003)applies“policyencodingandpolicydecoding”as

an analogy to study the policy processes. Ball (1993) applies “policy as text and policy as

discourse” to understand policy, and Lall (2007) highlights how policies reflect competing

interestsastheymoveintopractice.

Trowler (2003: 97) applies “policy encoding” and “policy decoding” as an analytical tool for

studyingpolicyprocess.Hearguesthatpolicy-makingcomprisesofthreeessentialstepsatthe

national level. They are: firstly, identifying the context of the issue or problem. Secondly,

mobilizingfinestructuresofgovernmentaction.Andlastly,comingtoagreementsinthefaceof

dilemmasandtrade-offs(Rein,1983:211,inTrowler,2003:96).Thenecessityofdesigninganew

policyrequiresaproblemorissuerequiringimmediateattention.Afterdefiningtheproblemarea

andoutlining the typeofpolicydiscussion, the respectivegovernmentbodiesbeginwith the

policyformulationprocess.Thefinalstageofthepolicymakingprocessisacomplexandnon-

linear processwhere “compromises betweenmultiple agendas and influences” of the policy

makers intervene (Trowler, 2003: 98). This in turn intervenes with the course of policy-

formulation.Therefore,policyencodingisadynamicprocessof“negotiation,compromiseand

exerciseofpower”wheredesigningofpolicyseldomtakesplacewithaclearpurposeinmind

(p.98).

Conversely,thepolicydecodingprocess(2003:97:Figure3.1),asarguedbyTrowler(2003),looks

intotheperspectiveofthepolicyimplementerswhoselectivelyinterpretpolicyandputitinto

practiceintheirowncontext.Trowler(2003)arguesthatirrespectiveofdifferenttoolsapplied

bygovernmentand/or the stakeholders,effective implementation ishindered.This results in

policy‘gaps’.Hearguesthatthesegapsresultduetopoliciesbeingdesignedeitheraccidentally

37

oroutofpoliticalnecessity(2003:105).Hearguesthathowpoliciesworkinthepracticalworld

isoftenunpredictable.Trowler(2003)statesthattheprocessoftransmissionofpolicystatement

to the implementers (e.g. teachers) is often problematic. For instance, either the policy

documentsarenotavailableoraremadeavailabletoolateresultingininsufficienttimeallocated

forreadingandprovidingconstructivefeedback(Figure3.1:97).Inaddition,theimplementers

misread thepolicy textand interpret it in theirowncontext therebyaffectingdesired result,

causingpolicy-practicegap.Therefore,the"noise”-multipleagenda,attitude,valuesandsetsof

meaning, interfereswithpolicy“signal”-desiredmannerof interpretation(Trowler,2003:Fig.

3.1: 97). Hence, this affects the processes of coordinated change at the national and

organizationallevel.

AcrucialargumentthatTrowler(2003)makesisthatsometimesgapsbetweenpolicyprocesses

occurduetothe“inherentlyparadoxicalnature”ofthepolicytext(Trowler,2003:112).Such

paradoxesresultduetothecomplexandcontradictorynatureofpolicytexts.Forinstance,"the

enterprise-traditionalism paradox” (advocacy for increased requirement for education and

trainingversusanold-fashionednationalcurriculumalongwithtraditional teachingpractices)

(Trowler, 2003: 118). Or “the widening participation while increasing financial obstacles to

learningparadox” (i.e. increasing theparticipation for lifelong learningversusabolishmentof

grants for students and contribution towards universities fees) (Trowler, 2003: 119).

Contradictionsofthesekindsaffectchangeinanuncoordinatedmanner.

Ball,similarly,outlinestwointerpretationsofpolicy:thenotionof“policyastext”and“policyas

discourse”(Ball,1993:44).Whenconceptualisingpolicyastext,Ball(1993)statesthatpolicytexts

areoutcomesof“multiple(butcircumscribed)influencesandagendas”(Ball,1993:45).Heargues

thatthesetextsareencodedinacomplexmannerdueto“struggles,compromises,authoritative

public interpretations and reinterpretations” by those who question, intervene and react to

policytext(Ball,1993:44).Furthermore,actorsbasedontheirunderstanding,skills,resources,

andcontextsdecodepolicytextincomplexways(p.44).Suchinfluencesobscurethemeaningof

policy text entailing in “public confusion and a dissemination of doubt” (Ball, 1993: 45).

38

Furthermore, this results in opening up of gaps and spaces for action and response due to

repeated interpretation of policy text. Hence, Ball (1993) argues that policy is text that gets

affected, deflected and inflected by social inequalities, as it is dependent on “commitment,

understanding,capability,resources,practicallimitations,co-operationand(importantly)inter-

textualcompatibility"(Ball,1993:46).

Additionally,throughpolicyasdiscourse,Ball(1993:48),presentsthedebatesaroundpolicyby

actorswhoexhibitpowerbybeinginfluential.Policydiscoursecreatesaframeworkofsenseand

obviousnesswithwhichpolicyisthought,spokenandwrittenabout(p.44).Ball(2003)argues

that it is throughdiscourse that tasksareaccomplished.Hemaintains that the inceptionand

legitimizationofdiscoursestakesplacethroughcertaininstitutions,suchastheState.Duringthe

processofpolicyimplementation,discoursecanbeboth-aninstrumentandaneffectofpower,

inaddition,ahindranceandapointofstartinganopposingstrategy(p.49).

Hence,withthisconceptualization,Ball (1993:43)advocatesforadiversityofapproachesfor

doingpolicyanalysiswithallits“complexityandscope”.Hecontendsthatfordoingsooneneeds

a“toolboxofdiverseconceptsandtheories",inordertomakesenseofthepolicyprocess(Ball,

1993: 43). Through ‘complexity’ Ball (1993) refers to the ambiguous nature of policy texts

resultingdue to compromisebetweencontestingparties.By ‘scope’Ball (1993) refers to the

accumulationofmacro-levelanalysisofeducationpolicyandeducationsystemandmicrolevel

analysisofpeople’sperceptionandexperience.Ball(1993)contendsthatthemovementofpolicy

withinthestatediffersas it is representeddifferentlybydifferentactors.Thiscausespolicy’s

purposetobere-workedandre-orientedresultingin“gapsandspacesforactionandresponse

that areopened-upand re-opened” (Ball, 1993:45).Hence,Ball (1993:51)whileopposinga

singlelevelanalysis,suggestsapolicytrajectorystudiesasacross-sectionalanalyticalstrategy,

as this tracespolicy formulation, struggleand response fromwithin the state through to the

differentrecipients.

39

Nevertheless,Evans,DaviesandPenney(1994)applyadifferentlenstoBall’stheoryandargue

thatpolicyasdiscourse“withitsnotionofconstraints”andpolicyastext“emphasis[es]human

agencyas texts [who]are invariably theproductof thosewhowrite them” (Lall,2007:6,my

parentheses).Also,Lall(2007:6)arguesthatBall’stheorydoesnotaccountfornationstateswho

areadaptingthemselvestotheprocessofglobalization.

Movingforward,Lall(2007)highlightshowpolicies,particularlyincaseofdevelopingnationsgets

influencedby international spheredue toglobalization. Sheargues that specific interestsare

privilegedwhenpolicymovesintopractice(p.v).InagreementwithBallandcolleagues(1992in

Lall,2007:4),Lallcontendsthatpolicytextthemselvesare“productsofcompromisesandpower

struggle”betweenactors.(2007:5).

Lall(2007)relateseducationpolicystudiesononehandto“socialjustice,inclusionand[the]fight

againstdiscrimination”andto“efficiency,effectivenessandquality”ontheother(Lall,2007:vi).

AccordingtoLall(2007:1)educationpolicystudiesarerelatedto“wideraspectsofpolitics,power

and influence”. Itemanateseither from internationalandnational spheresorare ‘borrowed’

primarily fromwestern countries (2007: 2). Lall (2007: 3-4) succinctly outlines the difference

between“statecontrolled”and“state-centred"policyformulationmethod.Sheshowshowstate

controlledmodels designate all power to the state for policymaking whereas state-centred

makespolicywhichgivesstatethecentralpositionwhilealsoacknowledgingotherinfluences.

Throughthisshehighlightsthesteadymovefromsingularfocusontheroleofthestatetowards

morecomplexgovernanceprocessesduringpolicymaking(Læssøeet.al.,2013:235).Inall,Lall

(2007)delineatesshiftedviewsfrompoliciesas logicalstructurestoacomplexsocialpractice

“constructed through discursive struggles and compromises that are open for multiple

interpretationsandtransformationsontheirwaytoinfluencingpractice”(Læssøeet.al.,2013:

235).

40

3.3.1Thecomplexitiesassociatedwith‘policy’inschoolsRecently, Ball (2015)while restating his above argument of policy analysis also indicates the

complexity and connectivity of the translations and interpretationof policymade in schools.

Through his arguments, Ball (2015) advocates for insightful discussions and debates on how

researchshouldunderstandandaddresseducationpolicyalongwithanawarenessoftheimplied

changes-politically, theoretically, methodologically and empirically, which holds substantial

policyevidence.Policy,inessence,isabouttryingtoachieveaparticulargoal.Itisperceivedthat

educationpolicyintendstooperateasa“significantleverofchangeinaninstitutionintendedto

serveallchildrenandyouth”(Honig,2006,1 inOmercajic,2015:13). It iscrucialtorecognise

“that implementation is an important link between the progenitors’ objectives and the

proceedingoutcomesofpolicy”(Omercajic,2015:13).Andbecauseimplementationisteeming

with “uncertainty and individualized interpretation, this process is difficult to control”

(Omercajic,2015:13).

Moreover,Ballet.al.(2012)examinedpolicyimplementationstudiesandhowthey“conceiveof

the school itself as a somewhat homogenous and de-contextualized organisation that is an

undifferentiated‘whole’intowhichvariouspoliciesareslippedorfilteredintoplace"(p.5).This

distinctionhighlightsthedifferenceinthecontextofthepolicyenactmenttopolicyformulation

process. Italsohighlightsthe‘agency’ofthosewhoputpolicyintopractise(Ballet.al.,2012:

p.2).Insum,policiesare“contested,mediatedanddifferentiallyrepresentedbydifferentactors

indifferentcontexts”(Ball,2015:6).

By delineating the analytical tools applied by the theorists, I have tried to highlight the

complexities associatedwithpolicy. These toolswill be applied inChapter 5of this thesis to

highlightthevariouscausesofpoliciesnotbeingimplementedthewaytheyshould,whichinturn

affectsdesiredoutcomes.

41

3.4ConclusionInthischapter,Ihavereviewedkeydocumentsandresearchpapersthathaveshapedthenotion

of education quality, while some specifically in relation to quality primary education. It also

outlineskeydimensionsofqualitydelineatedbyinternationalorganizationsandnationalpolicy

documents.Nevertheless, to reiteratemyargument, although international debatesmention

‘curriculum’ as an indicator for provision of quality education; they do so as a pointer (very

‘broadly’)with no specificity. In addition,while focus on enrolment, access, retention, pupil-

teacher ratio, public spending on education, curriculummastery by teachers, and so on, are

necessaryfirststepstowardsqualityeducation,thesearenotsufficientconditions.Apartofthe

concern can be addressed through curriculum reform process for addressing ‘quality’ within

classrooms.Therefore,thishighlightstheneedforstudyingcurriculumreforms,whichisacrucial

indicatoraddressing‘quality’withinclassrooms.ThishasalsobeenarguedbytheWorldBank

and UNESCO who contend that in curriculum reform lies the cornerstone for ensuring a

sustainablesociety.

Therefore,thisstudycontributestothecurrentlylimitedresearchbasethatfocusesonprovision

ofqualityeducationthroughcurriculumreformpolicyprocessforIndia.Iwillinmythesis,focus

onboththe‘economist’andthe‘humanistic’approachesforunderstandingqualityeducationas

itisapplicabletomyareaofstudy.IwillapplyboththesetheoreticallensestoNCF-2005and

thenevaluateitintermsofqualitativeandquantitativegoals.

Inaddition,thecomplexitiesassociatedwithpolicyprocesshavebeendelineatedbydiscussing

thetoolsappliedbyeminentpolicyanalystsforanalysingpolicyprocesses.Thesewillbeapplied

laterinChapter5ofthisthesis.

Inthenextchapter,Chapter4,themethodsusedforcarryingoutdocumentandpolicyanalysis

willbedelineated.

42

ChapterFour:Methodology

4.1IntroductionInordertoanswertheresearchquestionofhow‘quality’educationisunderstoodinNCF-2005,

thekeypolicydocumentsandthedecision-makingcontexthavetobeunderstood.Chapter4

explainstherationaleforthisandtheapproachtaken.TheChapterconcludeswithadiscussion

onissuesrelatedtovalidity,whilealsoindicatingthelimitationsofthestudy.

4.2Researchdesign

Thedebatesaroundthedefinitionofqualityandthecausesofcomplexitiesassociatedwithpolicy

thatwerediscussedinChapter3havebeenusedinordertoidentifycrucialquestionsrelevant

toqualityandcurriculumreformstrategies.

AlthoughtheNCF-2005andvariousprogramsdifferintermsoftheirexactgoalsandtimeline,

theyarecentredon:increasedenrolment,access,retentionforbothboysandgirls,infrastructure

development,teachertraining,qualityofteachers,curriculumreformandteachingandlearning

time.Thestrategytoanswertheresearchquestionofhowquality isunderstoodinNCF-2005

involvedtwomajorareasofresearch.Firstly,ananalysisofhowdifferentdefinitionsof‘quality’

have been addressed both nationally and internationallywas done. And secondly, the policy

analytical tools applied by various theorist for studying policy processes were applied. This

processcanbeseeninFigure-4.1below.

43

Figure-4.1:Broadconceptualframework

Theprocessisdiscussedbelow:

4.2.1Stepsinvolvedindesigningthetheoreticalframework

The initial step of the research method involved designing a theoretical framework and

determining its relevance to the study. This was initiated by designing a quality analysis

framework, which involved a preliminary overview of international documents and their

definition of quality. The ‘quality’ analysis framework developed contained two lenses: A

QuantitativelensandaHumanisticlens.

The second step involved identifying specific terms/conceptswithin theQuantitativeand the

Humanist lenses. The specific terms for the Quantitative lens were selected based on the

National CurriulumFramework2005(NCF-2005)

Quality analysisframework

Quantitativelens:

Ratesofreturn,enrolmentratios,testing,completionrates,teachingandlearningtime,teacher-learnerratios

Humanisticlens:Broadsocial andpersonallearningoutcomes:self-reliance,creativity,co-

operation,peace-oriented,learner-centredpedagogy

Policy analysisframework

Trowler(2003), Ball(1993,2015)andLall

(2007)

44

indicatorsthatinternational(EFA,WB,OECD)andnationaldocuments(NCF-2005andtheQMTs)

use to define ‘quality’ in education. This was achieved after thorough reading of relevant

documents/literature,highlightingeachinstancethatwasdeemedrelevanttotheterms.Specific

terms/concepts identified under theQuantitative lenswere: rate of return; enrolment ratio;

testing; completion rate; teachingand learning time; and teacher-learner ratio.On theother

hand,thehumanisticlenscomprisedofbroadsocialandpersonallearningoutcomes,suchas,

self-reliance,creativity,co-operation,learner-centredpedagogyandpeace-orientation.

Inall,thesecondstepwascrucialforcapturingkeyinformationthatidentifiedthecontextofthe

research. It assistedwith developing an over-arching quality and policy lens,with respect to

curriculumreforminIndia.Policyinstancesthatreflectedinstancesofhowqualityeducationwas

recordedinNCF-2005wereidentified.

The final step involved inter-weaving the findings about ‘quality’ into the Policy analysis

framework.Theinter-wovenframeworkwasappliedtotheNCF-2005forcriticallyanalysingthe

document,which is the crux of this thesis.This in turn gives the framework an over-arching

approachofaccountingforinstanceswhichinformthetwolenses-TheQuantitativelensandThe

Humanisticlensalongwiththespecifictermsinvolved.

Hence,thefinalstepprovidesaguidelinetoseeifthereareanygapsorspaces,whichdemand

futureintervention.Furthermore,becauseinstancesthatwerenotdirectlylinkedtothespecific

termswerealsorecorded,conclusionscouldbedrawnotonlyonthoseaspectsthatwereinthe

framework, but also on those that could be formulated differently in order to render the

frameworkmore fitting for studying quality education. The product of the third step of the

designingprocesswastheoverallfindingsresultinginconclusionbeingreachedwithrespectto

thetwoframework.ThesearediscussedinChapter5.

45

4.3Researchmethods

4.3.1DocumentanalysisThe current study employs document analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis-Fairclough’s

“textuallyorienteddiscourseanalysis”asthemethodologicaltool(Taylor,2004:435inSilbert,

2008:44).Theadvantagesofdoingadocumentanalysis,asdelineatedbyBowen(2009:31)are:

firstly,thedocumentsareeasilyavailableandaccessibleinthepublicdomain.Secondly,theyare

stableandavailableforrepeatedreviews.Andlastly,theyprovidebroadcoverage.

This thesis’ research method required the designing of a framework that included both,

documentandpolicyanalysisformakingitrelevanttothepresentstudy.Animportantfeature

of the framework is that it considers the various definitions of ‘quality’ as defined at the

international level. This directly influences how quality is perceived at the national level,

particularly with reference to NCF-2005’s definition of quality. The framework also explicitly

highlightshowcomplexitiesinpolicyaffectsdesiredoutcomes.Thisissignificanttothestudyas

itprovidesguidelinesfordoingpolicyanalysis.

Thetexts thatwereselected foranalysis included:TheNationalCurriculumFramework (NCF-

2005); 2013-UNESCO policy analysis handbook; research papers highlighting various

contestationsaroundthedefinitionofquality(EFA,WB,EC,OECD);andresearchpapersrelevant

topolicyanalysis(Ball,1993;Trowler,2003,andLall,2007).

The2013-UNESCOpolicy analysishandbookactedas a crucial guiding tool that assistedwith

outliningcrucialanalyticalquestions.This,inturn,assistedwithdevelopingcrucialarguments.

Moreover,thesebroadquestionsinadditiontomyexaminationofrelevantdocuments,assisted

mewith formulating specific questions relevant to primary educationwhich are discussed in

section4.3.3below.ForthefullsetofquestionsrefertoAppendix-2:E(1&2).

46

4.3.2CriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA)

Following the conceptual framework and literature review that assisted with outlining the

theoretical framework relevant for this study;CDA is thesecondmethodological toolapplied

throughwhichtheresearchproblemisaddressedandtheNCF-2005critiqued.Thisstudyaimsat

presentingacarefulandcriticalanalysisofthedominantdiscoursesintheNCF-2005policy,which

arerepresentedas“regimesoftruth”(Ball,2006:50).Recognisingthesediscoursesmayassist

with understanding dominant influences on the policy and ultimately to open the discursive

spaceforotherpossibilities.Silbert’s(2008)workinthisareaprovidesacomprehensiveoverview

ofwhatCDAmeansandhenceIwillbeusingherinterpretationofTaylor(2005)andFairclough’s

(2001)viewpointofCDA.Hence,CDAhasbeenusedasamechanismforexploringrelationship

between “discursive practices, events, and texts; and wider social and cultural structures,

relations,andprocesses"(Taylor,2004:435,inSilbert,2008:42)andunderstandinghow“texts

constructrepresentationsoftheworld,socialrelationships,andsocialidentities”(2008:42-43)

"to help uncover how discourses are implicated in producing and replicating the ideological

interests"(Fernsten,2005:375,inSilbert,2008:44)andinfluencesonthepolicy-makers.

ThetwodifferentapproachesofCDA-referredtobyFaircloughas“textuallyorienteddiscourse

analysis” (paying close attention to the linguist features of the text), and those paying less

attentiontothelinguistaspectsofthetext(greaterfocusonthehistoricalandsocialcontext);

theonerelevanttothisstudyistheformer(Taylor,2004:435,inSilbert,2008:44).This,inturn,

willdemonstratepolicy’smeaningbyhighlighting:firstly,howpolicyisestablishedattheglobal

level.Andsecondly,theimplicationthispolicy-borrowinghas.Thepolicywillbeapproachedfrom

theperspectiveofbothitsinclusionaryandexclusionarycapacity(Silbert,2008:43).Inclusionary

capacityofthepolicyreferstothatwhichwillattempttobringtolighttheembeddedideologies,

exposing the policies influences and orientation. Hence, while critically analyzing the policy

document the approach focused on “descriptive through interpretation and explanation for

understandingthepolicy’smeaning”(Fernsten,2005,inSilbert,2008:43).

47

Furthermore,theinterpretiveapproachtoCDAissuitabletotheresearchproblemasit isthe

“subtletiesandnuances…ratherthanstarkanddistinctpatternsandrelationships”(Ball,2003:

2,inSilbert,2008:44)thatareofinteresthere.Itisthesubtleties,ambiguitiesandcontradictions

withinthemeaningencodedinthepolicyinstanceswillbedescribedthroughtheanalysisofthe

policy text.This, in turn,willunpack social,economicandpolitical influences. Inall, a critical

analysis of policy instances using CDA method facilitated close examination of the various

influencesatworkinthepolicy’sdominantdiscourses.

4.3.3Crucialguidingquestions

Thedifferentstepsinvolvedindesigningoftheframeworkalsoresultedinformulatingguiding

questions. All of the questions formulated were based on the research questions and the

researchfocus.ThequestionsidentifiedwereusedintheanalysisphaseinChapter5.Inall,these

questions do two things. Firstly, they highlight what ‘quality’ means in the national policy

document (NCF-2005) and quality monitoring tool (the NCERT QMTs). And secondly, the

questions assist in examining if the measures used for attaining ‘quality’ in education are

adequate.ForthecompletelistreferAppendix-2.

Thekeyquestionsthatguidedmyanalysisduringeachstepareoutlinedbelow:

• Arethevariouspoliciesandprogrammessuitablyalignedtosupportorcontradictwhatis

neededforattainingprimaryqualityeducation?

• Have the various political, financial and geographical contexts been taken into

consideration,andhavetherelevantstake-holdersbeenconsulted?

Inaddition,crucialguidingquestionsinformingpolicytextanalysiswerealsoformulated.These

questions helped illuminate relevant policy instances within NCF-2005 and provide a more

general over-arching view of how the national education policy (NCF-2005) addresses broad

issuesrelatedtoeducation(seeAppendix-2).

• ForpolicyanalysisframeworkquestionsreferA

48

• ForcurriculumpolicydocumentreformquestionsreferB

Questionsformulatedinthesecondstepinforming‘achievingqualityeducation’areoutlinedin

Appendix-2:

• Fordemographic,social,economicandpoliticalcontextquestionsreferC

• ForlearningachievementsquestionsreferD

• For‘quality’questionsreferE(2)

Policy instances that reflected instancesof howquality educationwas recorded inNCF-2005

wereidentified.Guidingquestionsformulatedinformingthisaspectofqualityareembeddedin

questionsunderAppendix-2,seeE(2).

Thecrucialquestionsthatguidedthethirdstepareoutlinedbelow:

• Do policy and information gaps still exist? How can evidence-based policy

makingbeimprovedinthefuture?Whatactionsneedtobetaken?

• Does the policy design cover the actual bases of addressing quality education

at the primary level of schools? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the

design?Aretheindicatorsusedvalid?Aretheregapsornot?

Lastly,questionsforanalysingthevalidityofQMTshavealsobeenaddressed(seeAppendix-2:

F).

4.4.Analysis:ValidityandReliability

Asthecurrentresearchfocusesondominantdiscoursesaround‘quality’anditsinterpretation

by ground actors, the policy text had to be examined on three levels: “first, thatwhichwas

presentedanddescribed…second,thosementionedbutnotexplicated,andthird,thatwhich

was absent” (Silbert, 2008: 47). Factual accuracy of the interpretation was made known by

quotingrelevanttextsfromdocumentsforeasycomprehensibilityandaccuracyforthereader.

49

Anattemptwasmadeatremainingcognisantatalltimesofmy“subjectiveinterpretationofthe

textandtheextenttowhichthismayaffectitsvalidityandreliability”(Silbert,2008:48).

Furthermore,coherenceofmyfindingshadtobetakencareof.Iwasconsciousoftheinfluence

ofmyvaluesandconceptualframeworkontheinterpretationofthetext.ValidityandReliability

wassoughtadditionallybydemonstratingthatthe“interpretationpresentedfromtheanalysis

oftheselectedsectionsofthetextwasreflectiveofthetextingeneral”(Brown&Dowling,1998,

in Silbert, 2008: 48). This accounted for “authenticity” through accurate and genuine

interpretationof theoretical frameworkand the researchproblem (Maxwell, 1992, in Silbert,

2008:48).Therefore,byensuring that the findings interactedcoherentlywith the theoretical

perspective, an attempt was made to establish both validity and reliability. This, in turn,

supportedandframedtheresearchquestion(Silbert,2008:48).

4.5Ethics

Althoughnohumansubjectwasinvolvedinthecollectionofdata,theformalethicalprotocolsof

theuniversityhavebeenadheredto.Thisincludesupholdingthestandardregulationspertaining

to plagiarism. All documents used in this thesis were publicly available and did not require

negotiationofaccess.Allquotationshavebeenclearlycitedandreferencedthroughoutthetext

andreferencesusedarelistedattheend.

4.6Limitationsofthestudy

It might be that on working with the actors involved in the actual policy-making that their

understandings may be different from mine. Hence, in this study, I am working under my

boundedunderstandingofwhat‘quality’means;whereothersmayhavedifferentbutequally

validunderstanding.Furthermore,whileCDAhasitsstrengthsofprovidingacriticallensthrough

which “the discursive political discourses that have framed educational change and

development”maybedescribedandanalysed(Morley&Rasool,1999,inSilbert,2008:45),it

alsocreatesconstraints,whereit“maylimitpossibilities,reinforcingtheresearcher’sownvalues,

50

narrowingtheresearchlens,[and]‘precludingotherperspectives…’”(Monkman&Baird,2002:

449, in Silbert, 2008: 46). However, working with the actual policy texts does reduce this

possibilityofbias.Hence,anattempthasbeenmadetoestablishabroadconceptualframework

(seeChapter3)soastounderpinthemethodemployed.Lastly,intermsoftimeandresources

weresuchthatadditionaldocumentanalysesofallIndianpoliciescouldnotbedone.However,

thesewereusedforbackgroundknowledgeandtounderstandtheframeworkincontext.

InChapter5,theresultsofthisstudyarediscussed.Thischapterwillhighlightthefindingswith

respecttothestudy’skeyresearchquestions.

51

ChapterFive:TheNationalCurriculumFramework-2005(NCF-2005)

5.1IntroductionCentraltothereformideathatqualityneedstoimprovearetheissuesofhow‘quality’isdefined

andmeasuredwithinthepolicydocuments.Therearetwokeydimensionstothis.Firstly,has

qualityquaqualitybeenaddressed inamanner thataddresses theconcept; is itcoherentor

consistent in itselfandis it implementable?Secondly,howisqualityunderstood,definedand

enactedintheNCF-2005policy?

TorestatetheframeworkthatwasdiscussedinChapter4,thedefinitionofqualitytobeusedas

ananalyticalframeinrelationtoNCF-2005istheonewherequalitycanbeunderstoodbothasa

‘noun’ and as an ‘adjective’, where it has a wider range of meaning (Alexander, 2008).

Alexander’s argumentofunderstandingqualityencompassespolitical, global andeducational

definitions,whilealsoaccounting forbureaucraticandadministrativedecisions (2008). These

elementsprovidethelensthroughwhichIwillanalysetheNCF-2005asitisacombinationofthe

above.Throughthisdefinition,Iaimtoacknowledgethecomplexityinvolvedinthepolicymaking

processwhilealsoapplyinganeducationallens.This,inturn,willhighlightapplicationissues.

Theabovedefinitionthenmovesintothemeaningofqualityineducation,whichthentakesme

toGilmour’s(1997:2)questionsof“Qualityofwhat?Qualityforwhom?Qualityinrelationto

what?” which need to be asked. Gilmour (1997) contends that the meaning of the above

questionsis“constructedoutoftheinterplayamongstideologicalforcesinthewidersociety”

(Angus, 1992:379 in Gilmour, 1997: 2). Therefore, this results in quality and its consequent

indicatorsbecominga functionof“political,administrative,andpublicconceptionsaswellas

researchandeducationalfactors”(seeHofstee,1992:24-28;andLawton,1994:2-4inGilmour,

2007: 2). The above then highlights educational and ideological contestations, which often

engulfsthedefinitionofquality.

52

SofarIhavedonetwothings.Firstly,Ihavehighlightedthecomplexitiesassociatedwithquality,

itsdefinitionandmeasurement.Secondly,Ihavepointedoutthatunderstandingandanalysing

policyisacomplextaskbecauseofthepoliticalandsociologicalideologiesunderpinningpolicy

texts. Therefore, resulting in quality becoming an elusive policy target. Similar messiness is

observed incaseof theNCF-2005whichhighlightsdifficulties thatcanevadeachievementof

qualityissues.

Theframework,asdiscussedinChapter4,willbeappliedtoNCF-2005.Thedevelopmentofpolicy

depends on power. This play of power as argued by Trowler (2003), is the political impact

experiencedduringtheencodingprocess.This issimilartoBall’s (1993)representationofthe

policyformulationprocessintermsofpolicyastext.

Ontheotherhand,thedecodingprocesswillalsosimultaneouslydeterminewhetherthepolicy

istobeviewedastextordiscourseand/orboth(Trowler,2003).Ball(1993)arguesthatpolicyas

discoursedetermineshowtasksareaccomplished.IncaseofNCF-2005,discoursewouldreferto

implementationatthedistricts,school,teachersandstudents level.Howpolicy is interpreted

results inmisreadingpolicytextscausingpolicy-practicegap(Trowler,2003).Allof theabove

together create policy through ideological and educational lenses of what quality education

mightbe.

Therefore, the above contestations take me to Lall’s (2007) argument of how policies get

influenced by the international and national spheres due to globalization (p.2). This in turn

influenceswhatgoesintopolicytexts,shapingguidingprinciplesandobjectivesunderlinedfor

schools,teachersandlearnerstoaimorfollow.AsGilmour(1997)argues,“assumingthatsome

consensusmaybereachedonthepurposesofschoolingandonthemeaningofqualitytherein,

howdoesoneknowthatthegoalshavebeenreachedorotherwise?”(Gilmour,1997:2).Thisin

turn introduces thenotionofperformance indicators.TheNCF-2005hashad its fair shareof

influencebyinternationalandnationalspheres.Hence,thischapterprovidesacriticalanalysisof

53

theNCF-2005 that highlights the variouspolitical, ideological and sociological influences that

detereffectivepolicyimplementation.

Inthesectionsthatfollow,the‘quality’threadwillbecriticallyexaminedstartingfromtheissues

thatariseduetodifferingpolitical ideologiesbetweentheCentralgovernmentandtheState.

Furthermore,embeddedinthesepolitical ideologies issomeconceptofquality.And,through

themcomesoutawholenewsetof guidingprinciples. Theseget transmuted into indicators

resultinginmeasurementstakingpredominance(ReferFigure-4.1:43).Theseindicatorsthenget

translated into the curriculum and assessments. Alongside the above runs the QMTs that is

responsibleforensuring‘quality’ineducation,asadvocatedforbytheNCF-2005.Lastly,since

quality in education, as argued in the national and international documents, also demands

consideringteachertrainingprogrammesandresourceavailability.Therefore,acriticalanalysis

of all the above factorswill provideabroad frameworkonhow successful has Indiabeen in

achievingGoal-6,whichtheMHRDlaysaddedemphasisonachieving.

Thischapterfollowsthefollowingframework:

• ThepoliticalideologiesunderpinningNCF-2005

o GuidingprinciplesofNCF-2005

• Thestrengthsand/orlimitationsoftheNCERTQualityMonitoringTools(QMTs)

• ThequalityissuewithinNCF-2005

• HowdoesNCF-2005definequality?

• Curriculumdiscoursesattheprimarylevel

o Constructivistand/or‘child-centredformofteachingandlearning(Curriculumand

Language)

o Assessmentsinthecurriculum

o Teachertrainingprocesses

• Conclusion

54

5.2ThepoliticalideologiesunderpinningNCF-2005 EducationreforminIndiaupuntilthe1980’swasconcernedprimarilywithimprovingaccessto

schoolsandadequateteachingandlearningprocesses(Batra,2005:4348).Fromthe1960sup

untilthe1980s,theCongressGovernmentshadaliberalcurricularpolicyapproachthataimed

for inclusivenessof thediverse society. For instance, theNCF-1975andNCF-1988advocated

educationasatoolforsocialtransformation.However,itwasonlyinthelate1990sthattherole

ofthecurriculumitselfwasbroughttonationalfocus(NCESE1988:Preface;Batra,2005:4348).

TheBharatiyaJanataParty13(BJP)governmentwastheninpowerfrom1998-2004.Thisshiftin

politicalregimeallowedBJPtopursueaHindutva14agendawiththecurriculumpolicyreform,

resultingintheNCF-2000(Subramaniam,2003:n.p).

AsBatra(2005:4348)notes,theNCF-2000wasseenasfavouringthe‘Hindutvaagenda’(which

representedthepoliticalpartyideologyoftheHinduNationalistParty)“inthegarbofanational

identity”.Itnotonlyconsolidatedwhatwaspreviouslydone,butalsogavethecurriculumanew

ideologicalspin,whichmeanttheinclusionof‘Hindutva’biasedtextbooks.

Nevertheless,therewasstrongcriticismofthereform.Thetextbookscameunderwidescrutiny

notonlybyactors(head-teachers,educators,parents)butalsobycurriculumtheorists.Akey

criticismfacedbytheNCF-2000wasthat“...theNCF,whileloudonrhetoric,failstoaddressthe

quality of education that children of poor andmarginalised groups experience" (Nambissan,

2000: 54, in Batra, 2005: 4348). At this point the issue of quality achieved greater public

prominencethanpreviouslyandgainedimpetus,alongsidedebatesrelatedto“equity,inclusion

13TheBharatiyaJanataParty(BJP)governmentoccupiedpowerintheCenterduring1998-2004.14Hindutva,atermcoinedbyVinayakDamodarSavarkarisafascistmovement,adheringtotheconceptofhomogenisedmajorityandculturalhegemony,wherethedominantideology,inthiscase,Hinduism,manipulatesthecultureofthesociety,theirbeliefs,explanations,perceptionsandvalues(“CulturalHegemony”:n.p.).

55

andexclusion,learnerdiversity,religiousidentityandcommunalism[which]gainedconsiderable

importance” (Batra, 2005: 4348,my parentheses). This represented a change in educational

discourse from thenarrow religious–basedHindutva agenda to awider secular and inclusive

agenda(cf.Ball,1993:37-38).

Consequently,withthechangeofnationalgovernmentin2004(withthecentristCongressParty

anditsalliesleadingthegovernment15),andaconsequenceshiftofpoliticalinterests,theNCF-

2000wasrevisedresultinginthereleaseofNCF-2005.TheNCF-2005emphasised:“safeguarding

diversity andpreservingheterogeneity” (Subramaniam,2003:n.p.).With this, thenew ruling

partywithadifferentideologicalperspectiveredefinedtheroleofeducationonbothapolitical

andaneducationallevel.

This next section focusses on the political issues surrounding NCF-2005 (the discourse), and

Section5.3belowontheeducationalshifts(thetexts).

Onapoliticallevel,theideologiesoftheCongressPartyaimedatreflectingprinciplesthatwere

tied to the “Indian constitution of pluralism, secularism and a democratic ethos in school

curriculum” (WatsonandOzanne,2013:105). Itdid so tobringaboutnationaldevelopment,

facilitate “social mobilisation and [bring] transformation directed specifically at questions of

casteandgenderasymmetryandminorityempowerment”(Batra,2005:4348,myparentheses).

Therefore,whatNCF-2005 didwas locate itselfwithin the rubric of constitutional and social

values,unliketheNCF-2000thatwasat“variancewiththevaluesenshrinedintheConstitution”

(Raina,2005:n.p.).

FundamentallytheCongressPartywithalargemajorityinCentralGovernmentwasable,inthe

formulationoftheNCF-2005,to“de-saffronise”textbooksandcurriculanationwideandrestore

15TheleadingCongressPartyalongwiththehelpofitsalliesputtogetheracomfortablemajorityofmorethan335membersoutof543intheRajyaSabha(IndianGeneralElections,2014:n.p.).

56

thesecular characterofeducation” (“De-toxification”Article,2005:n.p.).However,given the

separationofpowerbetweenCentralGovernmentandtheStates,inStatesrunbytheopposition

BJPgovernmentproblemspersistedwithnotreplacingschooltextbooksthatespousedaHindu

nationalistagenda(IRFRReport-India,2005).Furthermore,atanationallevel,theBJPopposition

sawtheGovernment’sattempttoreviewthepolicyguidingprinciplesandtheNCERTbooksas

“nothing but an eye wash”, for fulfilling its academic and political agenda (“De-toxification”

Article,2005:n.p.).Thishighlightshowcontestingviews,powerplaysandideologiesoperate,

whichaffectstheeffectiveimplementationofpolicy.

ThissituationderivesfromtheConstitutionalpositionwhichstatesthateducationisashared

responsibilitybetweentheCentralGovernmentandtheStates,whereeachhavecertainkindsof

duties.Thus,theStatesandtheCentralGovernmenthavetoworktogethertodesignpolicythat

is then followed by districts and schools. The Constitution lays down inter alia norms and

standards related to P-T ratios, infrastructure requirements, school-working days, teachers

workinghours,teacher-traininganddevelopmentofcurricula(GovernmentofIndia,2016:n.p.).

As Ball (1993) and Trowler (2003) contend, policy is stronger when key stakeholders are

represented(Ball,1993;Trowler,2003).IntheIndiansituationwhilethiswasthecasewherethe

StatesandtheCentralGovernmentcollaboratedinordertopasslegislation,italsohighlightsan

immediateareaofcompromiseandnegotiation,irrespectiveofapartyhavingaclearmajority.

Thisfurtherimpliesthattherewouldbealimitedpossibilityofsuccessfulpolicytake-up.Incase

oftheNCF-2005,theformulationprocesstriedtoincludeasmanyrepresentativesaspossible.

ButitsguidingcorewastheConstitutionandthevaluesembodiedinit.ThisimpliesthatStates

andotherstakeholderswouldhavelittleroomtoobject,asthiscouldopenthemtothecriticism

ofbeinganti-constitutional.Hence,inawaysomeofthetensionthatBall(1993)andLall(2007)

describewithrespecttowhetherthepolicyisgoingtobetakenupispartiallydissipatedbythe

coreofConstitutionalvalues.Inaddition,Naik(1962)contendsthatthe“Constitutionwasoutto

createa‘strongCentre”[whichhashigherfinancialcontroland]…hadthemostdominatingvoice

intheoveralldeterminationofpolicies,prioritiesandprogrammes”(Naik,1962:No.26:n.p.).

57

ThissignificantroleoftheCentralgovernmentresultedinStatesnothavingthefinancialcapacity

for carrying out effective implementation (ET Bureau, 2010: n.p.). This caused most of the

controversiesonthesubject.

Furthermore, States have autonomous powers and differing social, political or ideological

underpinnings. Thismeans that even though the Central Government has powerful financial

control,thereisalsothepossibility,asinsomeBJPstates,ofa‘negative’complianceormore

generallyare-interpretationofpolicybyactorswhichmayfollowtheletterofthelawbutnot

necessarily the spirit of the law. Hence, the States might obey the ‘letter of the law’ by

propagatingaccess,equity,inclusivitybutnotdoanythingbeyondthat.This,inturn,willaffect

thedesiredresult.

Therefore,onunravellingtheNCF-2005,Ihavegotakindofprocessinvolvingpolicymakingthat

givestheimpetusforanewpolicy.Thisisperhapsnotonlyapoliticalargumentbutonethatalso

involvespublicpressure,unionpressure,andsoon.Hence,thisinturnpaveswayforpolitical

andideologicalvariations(includingnationalandinternationalbodies)tocomein.Outofthese

contestationscomenewpoliceswithvariouspressures.Thisinturnresultsinawholenewsetof

guidingprinciples towhichnational bodies- theCentralGovernment, the State and the local

bodieshavetoadhere.

Hence,throughtheaboveargumentitcanbeobservedthattheCentralGovernmentdesiresto

consolidate power and have more influence through appeals to the Constitution, through

financialcontrolandthroughthequalityindicators.

Theabovedifferingpoliticalideologiesin-turnhasimpactontheguidingprinciplesofeducation,

whichinturngettransmutedintoindicators.Thesearediscussedingreaterdetailbelow.

58

5.3GuidingprinciplesofNCF-2005Onaneducationallevel,deeperthanthesepoliticallydriveninitiatives,theprofessionalneedfor

acurriculumreviewemerged“fromthelongossificationofanationaleducationsystem”(Batra,

2005:4348).The reviewcommitteeof the finaldraftofNCF-2005comprisedof stakeholders

fromdifferentlevelsthatwasinclusiveofdistrictandlocallevelrepresentatives(Parankimalil,

2015:n.p.). Thiswas specifically initiated toaddress issues related tocurriculum loadand its

prescriptivenature.Italsoaddressedissues,suchas,viewingteachersasinstrumentsincapable

ofdecisionmakingandchildrenas“passiverecipients”with littleroomfordevelopingcritical

thinkingandunderstanding16(Batra,2005:4348).

AsseeninTable-5.1belowtheNCF-2005aimsatpresentinga“freshvisionandanewdiscourse

onkeycontemporaryeducationalissues”(Batra,2005:4347).

16TheseideashavebeenhighlightedintheNationalCurriculumFramework2005,p.2

59

Table-5.1:EducationalshiftswithNCF-2005

MAJORSHIFTS

PreviousCurricula NCF-2005

• “Teachercentric,stabledesigns • Learnercentric,flexibleprocess

• Teacherdirectionanddecisions • Learnerautonomy

• Teacherguidanceandmonitoring • Facilitates,supportsandencourageslearning

• Passivereceptioninlearning • Activeparticipationinlearning

• Learningwithinthefourwallsoftheclassroom

• Learninginthewidersocialcontext

• Knowledgeas"given"andfixed • Knowledgeasitevolvesandiscreated

• Disciplinaryfocus • Multidisciplinary,educationalfocus

• Linearexposure • Multipleanddivergentexposure

• Appraisal,short,few • Multifarious,continuous”

(Source:NCF,2005:110)

Apart from the shift in educational discourse, the new curriculum highlighted oncemore an

important and difficult principle. That is firstly, there should be a single National Policy on

Education (1968,1986 reformed in1992),and following fromthata“national framework for

curriculumasameansofevolvinganationalsystemofeducationcapableofrespondingtoIndia’s

diversityofgeographicalandculturalmilieuswhileensuringacommoncoreofvaluesalongwith

academic components” (NCF 2005: 4). Hence, the NPE-1986 entrusted the NCERT with

developingtheNationalCurriculumFrameworkforpromotingchild-centrededucation,universal

enrolment,anduniversalretentionofchildrenupto14yearsofage(NCF2005:4).

Thisprinciplehowever containsan inherent tensionbetweena flexible responsivenessanda

needtoensurethatgoalsareattained.Thus,ontheonehandtheNCF-2005clarifiesthatit“does

not intend topropose standardization” (Kidwaiet. al., 2013: 17) andargues that “relevance,

flexibility andquality” characterisesNCF-2005 (NCF2005: 4), and that through ‘child-centred

learning’itplacesthechildasthecentreandbuildsonthepreviousknowledgeoftheindividual

60

child.Ontheother,however,qualityisathreadthatrunsthroughout.Itidentifiesqualityasan

importantdimensionineducationandallotssub-sectionswithinchaptersfordiscussingprovision

madetowardsachievingqualityeducation.Itisthroughthese‘guidelines’thatintentionallyor

otherwisethat‘standardisation’beginstocreepin.ThiswillbediscussedmorefullyinSection

5.3.1below.

TheguidingprinciplesonwhichNCF-2005(section1.4:4-5)wasformulatedwere:

• “connectingknowledgetolifeoutsideschool(Sections2.7and2.8),

• ensuringthatlearningisshiftedawayfromrotemethods(Section2.4.1),

• enriching the curriculum to provide for overall development of children rather than

remaintextbookcentric(Section2.4.1),

• makingexaminationsmoreflexibleand integrating it intoclassroomlife (Section3.11)

and,

• Nurturing an over-riding identity informed by caring concerns within the democratic

polityofthecountry(Section4.2).”

Theseweredesignedcollectivelytoprovideabetterqualityeducationforallandtolinktothe

landscapeofsocialvalues17whicharetheunderlyingeducationalaims.Theseare:

• commitmenttodemocracyasawayoflife,

• promoting equality by accounting for diversity, with respect to, differences and

disadvantages(Section4.3(minoritygroups,women,SCsandSTs)),

• Internalizingpeace-building,justice(social,economicandpolitical)andlibertywhile

showingconcernforothers’well-being;andinculcatingrespectforconstitutional

values,culturalpluralityandsecularism.

(NCF2005:4-7&10)

17ThesocialgoalsarereflectiveoftheRightofChildrentoFreeandCompulsoryEducationAct(RTE)Act,2009.

61

Apartfromthesocialvalues,italsoaimstowardscreatingawarenessofenvironmentalissues.In

all, itbroadens thescopeof thecurriculumbypromotingdecentralisation that facilitates the

generation of relevant local knowledge and curriculum practices, including traditional crafts,

workandknowledge(Batra,2005:4349).Therefore, theaboveguidingprinciplesrepresenta

completelydifferentunderstandingofpurposesofeducation,pedagogyandthecurriculumthan

NCF-2000andpreviouscurriculumframeworkpromoted.Inaddition,anattempthasbeenmade

tolinktheeducationalgoals,pedagogyandthecurriculum.Overallthus,theNCF-2005advocates

amoreprogressive,humanisticprincipleforeducationthanthepreviouscurriculumframework.

With respect to the vital area of access, the NCF-2005 reiterates the commitment towards

inclusion and access to schools for all children (Universal Elementary Education) through

curriculumdesign.Hence,itadvocatesaddressinginequalityinchildrenfromdifferentcultural,

social and economic background through policies, schemes, learning task and pedagogic

practices.However,itdoesnotelaborateonhowthesemeasurescanbetakenorachieved.The

objectives are broadwith no guiding questions.Nonetheless, a crucial developmentwas the

establishmentofthelinkbetweencurriculatothepedagogicconcernsofthechildviathatofthe

teacher (Batra, 2005: 4349). It emphasizes the child as an active learner bywelcoming new

discourses which promote engaging questions, remapping and reconstruction of prescribed

knowledge,(againwithnoinputsonhowtodoso).

Nonetheless,theNCF-2005representsapositivebreakfromthepast.Itsprinciplesareinline

with internationalunderstandingofeducationandaska crucialquestion “Is it time forus to

refreshwhatweprovidetoourchildreninthenameofeducation?”(NCF2005:1).

Theimpetusforthenewpolicywasclearlypolitical,ideologicalandeducational.Itproduceda

newformulationthatrepresentedabreakfromtheimmediatepastoritsreligiousorientationof

thepreviouscurriculum,anditsnarrowbiases.InthatsensetheNCF-2005representsapositive

moveforwardinwhichtheguidingprincipleslinktosocialaims.Therefore,theyhaveattempted

to link together broad social aimswith an understanding of education that will facilitate an

62

achievementofthesocialgoals.Hence, inthatsensehavingbegunwiththequestionof“Is it

timeforustorefreshwhatweprovidetoourchildreninthenameofeducation?”(NCF2005:1),

thepolicymakershavegonetoconsiderablelengthsinattemptingtoanswertheabovequestion

inthoseguidingprinciples.

However, ifone lookscloselyat thepolicy textwithinNCF-2005, thenthereareclearlysome

difficultieswhicharediscussedinthefollowingsections.Firstly,therearegeneralmacro-level

issuesconcerning:

5.3.1 Thecurriculumframework:guidelinesvs.standardisation

5.3.2 Quality inthecurriculum:external(EFA,WB,OECD)vs. internal influences(NCERT

throughQMTs)

Secondly,therearemeso-andmicro-levelissuesconcerning:

5.4 Theissueofqualitywhichrunsacrossalllevels(throughQMTs).

5.5 Thecurriculumitself(textbooks,teachingandlearningmethods,curriculum,TLMsand

teachertraining)

Themacro-levelissuesarediscussedindetailbelow,whilethemeso-andmicro-levelissueshave

beentakenupinSection5.4and5.5.

5.3.1 Thecurriculumframework:guidelinesvs.standardisation

Therearetwobroadinherenttensionstoaddressingspecificityorotherwiseofthecurriculum

framework.Theyarethedifferingpoliticalandeducationalideologies.

Atthepoliticallevel,theguidingprinciplesofNCF-2005canbeseentobehavepartlyarisendue

totheconstitutionalarrangementsbetweentheCentralGovernmentandtheStates.Whenthe

Stateshaveultimateresponsibilityforrefiningandapplyingthecurriculum,themosttheCentral

Governmentcandoistoprovidebroadguidelines.Thisbroadlevelofdirectiongivingispolitically

important.Thetensionbetweendetailandguidelinehastobecarefullybalancedsoastoallow

the various States autonomy/flexibility in implementing the policy, while at the same time

63

preventing them from evading some of the principles of the broad curriculum. In all, the

drawbackthenliesintheanswer,andnotthequestion.

Ontheeducationalside,CentralGovernmentfacessimilarproblems.Althoughitaimstoprovide

guidelines to States for considering crucial aspects of education that determine provision of

qualityeducation,itaddressesthemvaguelyinvariousinstanceswithinthedocumentagainto

conformtoconstitutionalrequirementsaswellasallowingforcontextualvariation.

Intermsofactualcurriculumdevelopment,theprocessfollowedstandardcurriculumplanning

principles that are in line with common understandings of curriculum development (see for

example Tyler, 1949) (NCF 2005: 2). This was primarily done to assist schools and teachers

provideaframeworkinplanningtheexperiencesthatchildrenshouldhaveinschools.

However,whiletherewasvalueinthe‘structuring’ofthecurriculumframework,theproblemof

vagueguidelinesremains.Thus,myrealcritiqueisnotaroundthe‘process’,asthecurriculum

reformists followed a reasonable curriculum plan, but on the lack of clarity which enables

possibleStatere-interpretationand/oravoidancearoundsomeofthemechanismstoachieve

thegoalsofsocialandindividualinclusivity.

Overallthough,NCF-2005representsaverypositivestepforward.However,thereareseveral

keyissuesthatremainunanswered:

• First,what is the possibility of applying the principles in the curriculum in schools as

diverseastheyareinIndia?

• Second, the political question of how fast can one be expected to apply the above

principles?

• Third,howisqualitymeasuredanddefinedwithinthedocumentsandwhatimpactwill

measurementhaveonthedesiredflexibilityofdelivery?

64

5.3.2 Quality in the curriculum: external (EFA,WB, OECD) vs. internal influences (NCERT

throughQMTs)

While not necessarily designed to satisfy international requirements such as, the EFA and

MillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs),thegoalsofthiscurriculum,theNCF-2005,areinline

with international curriculum design movement elsewhere (Refer IIEP18). Here we see India

fallinginlinewiththemulti-national/internationaldiscoursearoundthepurposeandnatureof

educationalpracticesthrough:learner-centredpedagogy,therelationshipbetweenteacherand

childinsidetheclassroom,effectiveteachertraining,qualityteachingprocesses,contextdriven

pedagogicpractices,P-Tratios,andsoon(BarrettandSorensen,2015).

Toreiterate,outoftheaboveguidingprincipleshavecomemultipleguidelines:pedagogy,type

ofteacherrequired,thematerialsthatcouldbecontextuallyapplied,formsofassessmentand

use of language. Alongside the political and educational frame lies the National Council of

Educational Research and Training (NCERT) - an independent body/unit, who through their

quality controlmechanisms ensure that implementation takes place. This qualitymonitoring

mechanismrunsfromtheschoolthroughtotheCentralGovernmentandisanintegralpartof

theapplicationofthecurriculum.TheseQualityMonitoringTools(QMTs)arediscussedingreater

detailbelow.

5.4ThestrengthsandlimitationsoftheNCERTQualityMonitoringTools(QMTs)

TheQMTsweredesignedtoprovidethequality‘glue’thatbindstogethertheeducationaland

socialvaluesespousedintheNCF-2005.WhiletheNCF-2005wasnotmandatory,theQMTsare

utilisedbyalleducationsystemsandStates,andUTs(NCERT,2013:i).TheQMTsdesignedbythe

18TheIIEPPlanopolissectionprovidesinnumerablenationalcurriculumpolicydocumentsthatarereadilyaccessible.

65

NCERTprovideacomprehensiveindicator-basedframeworkwhosestrengthliesinitsattempt

towardsaddressingissuesrelevanttothecontext.Itoperatesonalllevelsfromschoolsthrough

totheCentralGovernment.ItwasrevisitedbytheNCERTwithreferencetotheNCF-2005,the

RTE Act 2009 and the SSA Framework, and outlines the various aspects that cover ‘quality’

education(NCERT,2013:ii-iii).ThistoolwasdesignedinconsultationwithStates/UTs,NUEPA,

TSGandMHRD,andtheGovernmentofIndia(NCERT,2013:i).Oneofthestrengthsisits“local

andhighlyspecificnature, intermsofverygeneralpolicypreoccupations[suchas, inclusivity,

teacher training, P-T ratios, access to TLMs (See Appendix-4)]”, which is an important

advancement as a model at the national level (Alexander, 2008: 12). The two- way flow of

informationandconsolidationandanalysisoftheprovidedfeedbacktakesplaceateverylevel

(NCERT,2013:Fig.-1:v).Theseevaluationsareappliedatfivedifferentlevels,fourtimesayear.

Nevertheless, the question that is crucial to this study is, how do the QMTs define quality

educationandaddressitinthedomainofcurriculumreform?

As far as “curriculum transaction” is concerned, ‘quality’ has been limited to quantifiable

measurements,suchas:

• Foreverysubjectanaccountofwhichchapterisbeingtaught.

• Coverageofcurriculum/textbooksofarandwithintheacademicyear

(adequate/inadequate).

• Textbookdistribution(whenand/orifdistributedlate,statewhy).

• TeachingandLearningMaterials(TLMs)(howmanyteachersreceivedgrantsfor

preparingTLMs,teachersdevelopingTLMs,availabilityandusageofthesame)“TLM

materialdevelopedbyteacherthemselves”(NCERT,2013:4),‘useofTLMs’,and

‘distributionoftextbooks’(ibid:4).

• Teachinglearningprocess(promotinginclusivitythroughthelearningprocess(SCand

ST),gamesandsports,gendersensitivelibrary).

(NCERT,2013:3-5)

66

Inaddition,therearetheusualothersupportingindicators:P-Tratios,enrolment,availabilityof

schools, teacher-training provisions and evaluation methods. The QMTs cover the following

areas:numberofprimaryandupper-primaryteachers,enrolmentandattendance,curriculum

transaction, pedagogy, evaluation and assessment, teacher training and schoolmanagement

committees(NCERT,2013:1-8;seealsoAppendix-4:128-135).Theseareprimarilyquantifiable

elements.

However, nowhere does it tackle the curriculum delivery issues such as the application of a

constructivistpedagogy, learner-centeredness, and theuseofmultiple knowledge sourcesor

indeedanyofthefacetsofa‘constructivistcurriculum’.Inthissense,ifpedagogyisconsidered

tobeattheheartofaqualityeducation,theQMTsdonot‘capture’thisessence.

ThereishoweverapartialresolutioninthewayinwhichtheQMTsbegintoconsiderthenotion

of quality education, through a focus on teacher-training, the use and creation of TLMs and

curriculumcoverage.Inthissenseasatoolitismoreadvanced,sophisticatedandcoversmore

areasthanbefore.Nevertheless,as indicatedaboveandasAlexander(2008)argues,acrucial

missingareaisthepedagogywithinclassroomsasadeliverymechanismofthecurriculum.Part

ofthisproblemderivesfromthelackofspecificityintheguidingprinciplesonwhatconstructivist

pedagogyshouldentail(thisismorefullydiscussedin5.6).

Theproblemalsoliesinthedifficultyof‘capturing’thequalitativeelementsthemselves,aswell

as on different administrative levels, and particularly at the school level. Thus on carefully

assessing the adequacy of QMTs one can argue that the tool although appropriate, is not a

comprehensiveandcoherentlistwithrespecttocurriculumfeatures.

Significantlythough,theQMT’sdoprovideastandardisationandcontrolofthecurriculumthat

thegeneral frameworks cannotdo. Ifwhat ismeasured counts, then theQMT’s through the

monitoringoflearnerperformance,curriculumpacing,teacheruseofmaterials,andassessment

createasetofguidelineswhichpartiallyoffsetthe‘vagueness’ofthebroadNCF-2005aimsand

67

partiallyreducetheautonomyoftheStates.Inthissensetheyserveasa‘corrective’between

standardisationandtheflexibilityofaframeworkapproach.

Apartfromthisthesetheoreticalandpoliticalconsiderations,technicaldifficultiesaroundvalidity

andreliabilityhaveemerged.

Validity with respect to the relationship between the proposed indicators for curriculum

transaction andwhat actually happens in classrooms, should be reviewed. For instance, one

wouldneedtoaskwhatsignificancedoes“howmanyteachersreceivegrantsforTLMs”have

withrespecttothecurriculum(ReferAppendix-4,Q.11(a):131).ToputitinAlexander’swords

“are QMT users, and QMT authors, barking up the right tree?” (Alexander, 2008: 15). Are

‘textbook distribution, TLMs and gender sensitive library’ self-sufficient monitoring tools for

makingprovisionforqualityeducation?

Apartfromtheinstrumentitself,theadministrativeenormityofthetaskraisesreliabilityissues

ofthemonitoringtool,withrespecttoitsrepresentationofinformationforthedifferentlevels

forwhichtheQMTisfollowed.TheQMTfollowsanextensivemonitoringformati.e.fourteen

monitoringformatsandthreeanalyticalsheets,atthefivelevels.Theseneedtobemonitored

andaggregateduptofourtimesayear.Thisisaverydemandingtasktomanageongroundsof

the large number of schools and teachers. There are 1,448,712 elementary schools and 7.7

millionelementaryschoolteachers(NUEPA,2014:22-23).Thismeansforschoolsaloneatleast

5,794,848millionx8pageQMTform.Thesheervolumeofmanualprocessingisboundtocreate

difficulties.Therefore,putsimply,thesenumbersrepresentpolicyconstraints.Furthermore,with

schools and teachers placed under varying contexts its consistent applicability poses serious

doubt,particularlyas thedata isaggregated fromtheschool throughtoCentralGovernment

levels.AsAlexandersaysevenassumingthattheresultsare“reasonablystablebothsemantically

andmethodologically, then reliability remains a problematic aspect of theQMT” (Alexander,

2008:15).

68

Thisthenbringstolightthe“conceptualand/orempiricalbasisofthedimensions,featuresand

indicators”oftheQMTs(Alexander,2008:14).Withitssubsequentrevisionandfailureonthe

partofNCERTtoaddresstheseissuesfurtherposesquestiononthe‘justifiability’oftheformat.

Lastly,howdoestheinformationbeingcollected,analysedandused,determinedecisionabout

educational policy and practice (Alexander, 2008: 16)? Hence, adopting a top-downmethod

often weighs heaviest on ground actors who are at the receiving end of accountability

procedures.Inall,whilewehaveafantasticpaper-basedsysteminvolvingalltheelementary

schools,it’shighlyunlikely,basedontheabovearguments,forsuchamethodtogiveusdesired

results.

Hence, in lightof abovearguments, it canbe contended thatquality is adifficult concept to

realiseforevaluation.Asindicated,internationalandnationaldebateshavelargelycentredon

indicators as standards forpromotingquality education (Alexander, 2008:11). This results in

qualitybeingconsideredwithoutotherbasicattributes-inthiscase-curriculumreformstrategy

initstotality.Asaresult,wearehardlyinapositiontodistinguishbetweena‘qualitycurriculum’

andanordinaryone.Thishighlightstheissueofqualityascontentiousandanelusiveone,which

oftenresultsduetoitscompetingideological,socialandpoliticalinfluences.Tosummarize,the

comprehensivemonitoringtoolssetoutbytheNCERTwhilecomprehensive,suffers fromthe

drawbackshighlighted through thearguments above. In all, as thedocuments inAppendix4

show,theframeworkisbrief,evaluativeandpartiallyprescriptive(seeAlexander,2008:13).

Giventhis,itisimportantnowtoexaminehowtheissueofquality,asdefinedbyNCF-2005will

beaddressed.Thisraisetwofurtherquestions:isthereageneralagreementaroundwhatitis

usingtomakeprovisionforqualityeducation,andhowreceptiveandwillingareactorsatthe

groundleveltowardsinterpretingpolicytext?

69

5.5ThequalityissuewithinNCF-2005

5.5.1HowdoesNCF-2005definequality?Throughtheabove-delineatedfeatures(guidingprinciplesandQMTs),theNCF-2005attemptsat

reaching out to every childwhile aiming for their holistic development. Nevertheless, if one

delves deeper into the quality dimension new challenges emerge. This stands against the

participatorydemocraticvisionthatthenationaleducationsystemaimstopromoteandhence

demandsintervention.TheNCF-2005identifies‘childperformance’asoneofthemeasuresof

theindicatorofsystemicquality.ItdoessobasedonUNESCO’sglobalmonitoringreport,which

discussessystemicstandardsastheappropriatecontextofthequalitydebate(NCF2005:8).

Fromthis,theNCF-2005doesnotdistinctlydelineateaworkingdefinitionofwhatitmeansby

quality education but rather identifies elements that may determine provision of quality

education, such as infrastructure development, availability of resources within classrooms

(desks,chairs,textbooks),enrolmentratios,teacher-pupilratios,utilizationofspacewithinand

outside classrooms, in-service teacher training, OoSC and the inclusion of minority group

students(SCs,STs,CWSNs).Furthermore,itacknowledgesthecomplexconceptualandpractical

issuesrelatedtotheprovisionofqualityeducationbyhighlightingtheproliferationofprivate

institutions19 over government ones. It acknowledges that this has partly resulted due to

increased significance given to examinations for judging education quality. This is further

aggravatedbygovernmentschoolshavinginsufficientand/orunequalresourceavailability(NCF

2005:8).

Twocrucialdrawbacksofpromotinguncheckedprivatisationofschools,theNCF-2005argues,

are: first, it undermines the importance of child’s mother tongue that assists in meaningful

1925%ofallK-12schoolsinIndiaareprivateschools.Thisaccountsfor40%shareinstudentenrolment(FICCI,2014:10).

70

knowledgeconstruction.Andsecond,itexcludeschildrencomingfromanunder-privilegedsocio-

economic background who have limited financial availability. In this way, NCF-2005

acknowledgesthatappropriatemeasuresshouldbeputinplaceforachievingqualityeducation.

Assaid,thesemeasureslargelyrelatetoinputssuchas:resourceavailability,basicinfrastructural

supportinschoolsrunbyStatesandlocalbodies,recruitingqualifiedandmotivatedteachersand

effectiveteachertrainingprogrammes.

Thisfocusonresourcesderivesfromaclearrecognitionoftheresourceshortfalls.ThustheNCF-

2005arguesthat“physicalresourcesbythemselvescannotberegardedasanindicatorofquality

yettheextremeandchronicshortageofphysicalresources…areanecessarypreconditionfor

quality”(NCF2005:8,author’semphasis).Thisstandscontradictorytowhat‘quality’education

entails. Inacountryasvastanddiverseas India, shortageof resource incontrast to ‘drastic’

shortageisinitselfanindicatorthatasignificantnumberofchildrenwillbedeprivedofaquality

teachingandlearningexperience.IftheCentralGovernmentisfacedwiththisconstraint,then

onehastoask‘wheredoesthisadvocacyforqualityeducationasdefinedintheNCF-2005go?’

AfurtherconstrainthighlightedbyboththeChattopadhyayaCommission20(1984)andtheNPE-

1986isadilutionofthestandardofteachers(NCF2005:8).Itisunambiguousthatteachersare

centralplayerswhoassistinachievingqualityineducation.Onecandowithsharingresources

betweenschools(particularlyinruralareas,asadvocatedbytheNCF-2005)butmuchharmcan

bedonebyneglectingthequalityofteachingwithinclassrooms.With7.7millionteachersinthe

primaryschoolsystemalone,there-trainingtaskappearsalmostover-whelming.Therefore,itis

disappointingbutperhapsnotsurprisingtolearnasAlexander(2008:vii)arguesthatpedagogy

doesnotfinditstrueplaceinnotonlytheIndiancase,butmoregenerallyintheinternational

discoursewheretheprovisionofqualityeducationisconsidered.ThisisprevalentincaseofNCF-

20TheChattopadhyayaCommissionReport(1984)oftheNationalCommissionprovidesrecommendationsforestablishinganintegratedteachereducationprogrammeaftergradetwelve,runningforfouryears,wherestudentsarerequiredtostudyothersubjectsalongwithpedagogictopics(BharatiBaveja,inDeepa,A.,2006:n.p.).Thiswasprimarilydoneforpreparingfutureteachers.

71

2005,where learners have been given precedence over teachers, a nod to the principles of

constructivism.

Notwithstandingthis, thepolicydocumentadoptsaholisticapproach,where itadvocates for

experienceslearnersshouldhaveintermsofknowledgeandskills(NCF2005:8).Itmakesquality

andsocialjusticeitscentraltheme(ibid:9).Itadvocatesforsubjectsintheschoolcurriculumto

includeknowledgethatconsider thesocio-economicandculturalconditionof the learners. It

argues that quality education is inclusive if it concerns achieving “quality… life in all its

dimensions”forthelearners(NCF2005:9).Thishasbeenindirectlyaddressedvia“concernfor

peace,protectionoftheenvironmentandapredispositiontowardssocialchanges”(NCF2005:

9).Theseareviewedasthecorecomponentofqualityandnotmerelyasvalues.

Thus, if one looks closely at the NCF-2005, the quality changes addressed are in line with

international curriculumdesignmovements.Thispoints to thegreaterhomogenisingofwhat

‘quality’entails,whichmighthavederivedpartiallyfromtherootformofglobalisingof ideas.

Moreover, how quality is to be measured is relatively similar to international benchmarks.

Therefore,justasinternationalmeasureshavecomeundercriticismforvariousreasonssuchas

irrelevance of context and misinterpretation of policy text by ground actors, the NCF-2005

measurestoocancomeundersimilarcriticism.Likewise,withperformanceasakeyindicatorof

measuring‘quality’ ineducationthewholesystemislikelytobecomemoreexamdriven.This

wouldthencountermandtheaimoftheNCF-2005toreducethecurriculumload,createjoyful

learning,andimplementaconstructivistandlearner-centredapproachtolearning.

TheabovewasthequalityframeandtowhichIwillreturntoseehowitimpactsonthecurriculum

inaction.

72

5.6Curriculumdiscoursesattheprimarylevel

SofarIhavedealtwiththequalityframe,wherewehavethebroadpolicyframework-NCF-2005

thatissupportedbytheNCERTthroughtheQMTs.TheNCF-2005isashiftasdemonstratedin

Table-5.1fromalargelytraditionalapproachtoeducationasawholetoamoreconstructivist

approach.Forasuccessfultransitiontobeachieveditisrequiredthatthecurriculumdemands,

teachertraining,textbooksandsupportmaterials,andassessmentareallaligned.

Thecurriculummanifestationsinrelationtothisarediscussedbelow.

5.6.1Constructivistand/or‘child-centred’formsofteachingandlearning:

TheNCF-2005,formulatedbytheNCERT,arguesthattherearetwomethodsoflearning.First,

informallearningthatrefersto“learners’naturalabilitytodrawuponandconstructtheirown

knowledge”(NCF2005:12).Andsecond,formallearningthattakesplaceinschoolsand“opens

upnewpossibilitiesofunderstandingandrelatingtotheworld”(NCF2005:13).Hence,theNCF-

2005 moves away from the behaviourist method of teaching and learning that propagates

“textbookculture”(NCF2005:13),“examination-relatedstress”(NCF2005:14)and“lotofdrill

andpractice”(earlieradvocatedbytheNCF-2000)(Agrawal,2007:16).Itreorientsthemanner

inwhichthelearnerandtheprocessoflearningisperceivedbyadvocatingfor“child-centred”

pedagogy and defines it as “giving primacy to children’s experiences [by responding to their

physical(mentalandcognitivedevelopment),culturalandsocialenvironment],theirvoicesand

theiractiveparticipation[bynurturingcuriosity]”(NCF2005:13,myparentheses),anapproach

attheheartofconstructivisteducation.

Agrawal(2007)arguesthatinconstructivistpedagogy“learnersconstructtheirownrealityorat

least interpret it basedon their perception of experiences, so an individual’s knowledge is a

73

functionof one’s prior experiences,mental structures, andbeliefs that areused to interpret

objectsandevents”(Jonasson,1991inAgrawal,2007:18).Crucialelementsoftheconstructivist

approachtoteachingandlearningarediscussedbelowunderthefollowingsub-headings:

5.6.1.1 Learner’sactiveinvolvementinthelearningprocess

5.6.1.2 Theroleoftheteacher

5.6.1.3 Advocatinglearner-centeredpedagogy

5.6.1.4 Theactivitiesare‘child-centered’ratherthan‘lesson-centered’resultingin

autonomouslearningmeasures

5.6.1.1.Learner’sactiveinvolvementinthelearningprocess:As Agrawal (2007) argues, satisfactory learning experience through constructivism can be

achievedonlywhenthestudentandteachertogetherdeterminethelearningpathand“when

the teacher provides suitable inputs to achieve the goals the students set for themselves”

(Agarwal,2007:26).

Learner’sactiveinvolvementinthelearnercentredapproachtoteachingandlearningreliesmost

importantly on what the learners know and the teacher’s ability on pedagogic strategies to

facilitate that learning. Methodologically, while the NCF-2005 advocates for ‘group work’, a

crucialcomponentofconstructivistpedagogicalpractice,thismayaffectlearnerdevelopment,

asseenintheSouthAfricancasewherethe‘learner-centred’approachwasmisinterpretedfor

groupworkbyteachersthereby,affectingdevelopmentofhigh-orderthinkingskills(MoE,2000:

29).ThisislikelytobethecaseforIndiawheregroupworkcouldtakeprecedenceoveradirective

learningprocedure,ateachingmethodologytheNCF-2005aimstodoawaywith.Furthermore,

aprominentspokespersonRajanPrasadofSahmatarguesthatincluding‘localknowledge’may

haveseriousimplicationofobscurantistideasenteringpedagogicpracticesespeciallybyteachers

whoareunawareorhavenotbeentrainedonhowconstructivistlearningtakesplace(DeepaA.,

2005:n.p.).

74

Furthermore, this ‘gap' cannot be prevented unless the teacher is able to utilise different

pedagogicskillstopreventthat.AndinacountrylikeIndia,withoneoutoffiveprimaryteachers

reportedasunqualifiedandtheneedtotraintoalltheseteachers,theprobabilityisthatthegap

betweentheweakerpoorerstudentsandthewealthierstrongerstudentsislikelytogrowrather

thanweaken(seeVarmal,2015).ThisisworsenedbyteacherabsenteeismwhichtheWorldBank

in2005reportedas25%ofgovernmentprimaryschoolteachers.Inadditiononly50%ofteachers

areactuallyengagedintheactofteachingwhileatwork,accordingtoresearchers(Kremeret.

al.,2005:n.p).

In addition, constructivism calls for altering the standardised curriculum in favour of amore

personalized course of study based on what the student already knows. This is likely to

disadvantage underprivileged children, particularly in rural areaswho do not have access to

resourcesorknowledgebeyondtheirownparticularsituation.Also,constructivismmayhinder

learning fordisadvantagedchildrenwho lack thenecessary resources to link the relationship

betweenoutsideandschoolknowledge.

Centraltosuccessisthere-trainingofteachers.AsBatraargues"Ifeducationisempowerment,

thenitcannottalkonlyofstudents'empowerment.Itshouldincludeteachers'empowerment"

(Batra,inDeepaA.,2005:n.p.).Thislackof‘empowerment’hascreatedstrongcriticismforNCF-

2005 centered around the strong advocacy for child-centerednesswith teachers having very

limitedsay21.

Furthermore,asWestbrooket.al.(2013)highlight,sometimesteachersalthoughenthusiastic,

fail at implementing the new curriculum approaches because of limited “understanding or

support[provided]toimplementthecurriculumasintended”(Westbrooket.al.,2013:27).Such

isthecaseforIndiawherepedagogicmethodssufferedseverecriticismfromteacherswhohad

21ReferDeepaA.,2005:n.p.

75

little or no knowledge of what child-centered and constructivist pedagogic practice requires

(DeepaA.,2005:n.p.).Thisresultedinteachersrevertingbacktotraditionalmethodsofteaching.

InagreementwithSpillane’s(1999)argumentof“zonesofenactment”,“[t]eachers’attentionto

reform is complex, especially in case of reforms that propose changing the core [of] their

practice”(Spillane,1999:154,myparentheses).Hence,assumingthateducatorsexistinisolation

ofasocio-politicalcontextleavesamajorgapinthevisionthattheNCF-2005hasforitslearners

andthesocietyinlarge.Thisinturnaffectsimplementation.

Itiscrucialtohighlightherethatwhiletheabovemighthamperimplementation,thesearenot

inherentflawsinconstructivismitself.Whiletheconstructivistteaching-learningpracticefitsthe

Indian context due to its pluralistic, multi-diversity and multi-lingual nature of the society.

However,wefindthesamepossibleweaknessesasseenforvariousothercountries22.Similar

contestationsarise intheIndiancontext.Thecrucialquestionthenis,howlikelyareteachers

goingtobeinanideologicalspacetoacceptthechangesmadeinthepolicytextandconsider

themasreasonable?Also, trainingdoesn’tguaranteethat teacherswill suddenlyswitchtheir

teachingrole.Therefore,onehastoconsiderthepossibilityofchangefortheteachersinterms

ofculture,teacher-trainingandteachingmethods.Thisthencallsintoquestionthequalityissue

associatedwiththeNCF-2005thatadvocatesforsuchanapproach.AsSpillaneet.al.(2002)note,

whenpolicytextis“unclear,unspecified,ornotdetailed,theoddsofitbeingimplementedare

extremelylow”.

22Forinstance,theOutcomesBasedEducationinSouthAfrica(introducedinthelate1990s);HongKong(adoptedin2005);Australia,Malaysia(practicedsincethe1950s),UnitedStates(inthe1990s);Pakistan(workingtowardsitsimplementationsince2010)andEuropeanUnion(advocatedin2012).OBE/constructivistformofteachingandlearningwassubsequentlyremovedduetoitsvariousshortcomings,afewsimilartooneshighlightedintheSouthAfricancase(“Outcomes-basededucation”,2016:n.p.).

76

5.6.1.2.Theroleoftheteacher

TheNCF-2005redefinesknowledgebyquestioningtheauthorityof‘textbook’andtransforming

itinto“facilitatorsofknowledgeratherthanthesolecustodianofknowledge”(Babu,2007:5).

InlinewithAlexander’s(2008)definitionofthe‘noun’formofquality,NCF-2005contendsthat

“critical pedagogy” facilitates open discussion, collective decision making and acknowledges

multipleviewsintermsoftheirpolitical,social,economicandmoralaspects”(NCF2005:23).By

social issues itprimarily refers tohumanrights,caste, religion,andgender.Furthermore, the

policy emphasizes the agency of the teacher in promoting critical pedagogy and inclusivity

(particularlywithrespecttogirls,marginalisedgroups-SCsandSTsandchildrenwithdisability),

allofwhichareaspectsofquality(ibid.:23).

Hence,children’sexperience,voicesandparticipationisgivenprimacywheretheyaregiventhe

opportunity tomakemeaning of text in class in relation to their social context. This in turn

facilitatescriticalpedagogythat“worksforthedevelopmentofcriticalconsciousnessoflearners”

(Freire,1973, inBabu,2007:10).TheNCF-2005outlinesmeasures that facilitateandsupport

planningofaflexibleandimprovedteacherperformancewithinclassrooms.Italsorecommends

thepossibilityofadopting“multipletext-books”(Babu,2007:5).

CrucialstrengthsofcriticalpedagogyasadvocatedbytheNCF-2005are:first,itquestionsthe

monopoly of school over knowledge thus carving a democratic space for knowledge. This

transformstheroleoftheteacherfrombeinga ‘transmitter’ toa ‘transformer’ofknowledge

(Babu, 2007: 14). Second, in amulticultural society like India’s, it promotes “multiple views,

perspectives and sensitivity to cultural differences” (Babu, 2007: 10). Third, it challenges

students,educatorsandcitizenstorethinkestablishedcurriculaandteachingmethodologiesfor

fitting into the context. Lastly, it links school knowledge with outside knowledge, which

contextualisesschoolknowledge.

ThiscallforashiftinteacherideologyneedstobeseenagainstacontextinwhichBabu(2007)

rightlyarguesthat“[s]choolsasaninstitutionalisedknowledgeendeavour,inallages,servedthe

77

interestofdominantpowerrelations…representedbythestate”(2007:6).WhileIndianschools

claimtobe–thenoun-“egalitarian,democraticandinclusive”,onthecontrary,ithasbeen-“the

verb- unequal, undemocratic” and this has excluded learners through physical and

epistemologicaldistance(Babu,2007:11).AsBatra(2005)argues,NCF-2005constructsteachers

asa“homogenouscategory”whoarenotfarremovedfromtheirown-politicalcontext,where

biasesanddiscriminationagainstpeoplebasedon theirbackgroundexists (2005:4350). This

oftenresultsindebatesrelatedtoequalityandgenderseldomenteringtheteachingworld.

Therefore,thecentralquestionthatNCF-2005evadesis:Howdoyouenablecriticalpedagogy

andmeaningmakingamongchildrenwithteacherswhoarenotveryfarremovedfromtheirown

deeplyrootedunderstandingsof teaching, learningandsubject-matter?Toelaborate further,

thiscallsintoquestionthe“joyfullearning”experiencewhichtheNCF-2005aimsforitslearners

toexperience.

Iwillnowcriticallyanalysetheimplicationsconstructivistandchild-centredpedagogicpractice

hasontheorientationanddeliveryofthecurriculumwithinclassroom,particularlyattheprimary

(GradeI-V)level.

5.6.1.3.Advocatinglearner-centredpedagogy

TheNCF-2005reflectsaprogressive forwardthinkingcurriculumframework.The insightsand

recommendationsofthepolicydocumenthasbeenusedformakingnewandrevisedtextbooks

(NCERT,2010:Foreword).NCF-2005recommendsa“pluralityoftextbooks”,CCE,“flexibilityin

examination,timeschedulesofschools,andalsomothertongueasthemediumofinstruction"

(NCERT, 2010: 6). Thus, NCF-2005 takes into account crucial aspects, such as, systemic

characteristics, context, inclusivity, child’s ability and resource availability. It allows ‘new

knowledge’toenterthecurriculumbothinitsdesignanditsimplementationbybreakingdown

disciplinesandinterdisciplinaryknowledge(SajithaandNath,2009:6).Thispromotesequalising

educationopportunitiesbyaccountingfordifferencesviafreedomforinputs.

78

The‘national’curriculumoutlinedattheprimarylevel(GradesI-V)includes:

“A.Grades1and2:

• Onelanguage-themothertongueorregionallanguage

• Mathematics

• ArtofHealthyandProductiveLiving

B.Grades3to5:

• Onelanguage-themothertongueorregionallanguage

• Mathematics

• EnvironmentalStudies

• ArtofHealthyandProductiveLiving”

(NCERT,2006c:Content;Cheneyet.al.,2005:5)

Onfurtherextendingtheanalysistotheschemeofstudyofcurriculumareasattheprimarylevel

(from Grade I-V), the policy document provides: cognitive, process, content historical and

environmentalarea.Thisisalongwithsomeethicalvalues,suchas‘joyfullearning,teamwork,

independent thinking, creativity, self-discipline, cognitive self-flexibility’, that should be

transmittedthroughpedagogicalpractices(NCF2005:20).

Itrecommendsa“softeningofdistinctionsbetweenfourcoresubjects-Mathematics,Languages,

Sciences,andSocialSciences”whilepayingspecialattentiontocrafts,peace,healthandphysical

education(Kidwaiet.al.,2013:17).Hence,thecurriculumallowslocaldiscretionandvariation

foreverysubjectwithinagreednationalparameters.Anoutlineofwhatthecurriculumforthe

various levels shouldcover,according to theNCF-2005, in termsof content, level, standards,

curriculumcoverageandscope,hasbeenprovidedinAppendix-3.

Onbroadlyanalysingthecurriculum, Iwould liketoarguethatnoneofthesubjectareastalk

about the values- constructivist, learner-centeredness, integration of school and outside

knowledge,criticalpedagogy, it issupposedtodeliver.Abroadframeworkofcontentforthe

79

different subject areas has been delineated symbolising ‘essential knowledge’. Therefore, it

coverscontentareasasonewouldnormallyfindelsewhere.

Therefore,advocatingacurriculumthatembodiestheaboveprinciplessimultaneouslydemands

asensitive,informedanddedicatedteachersformaintainingsuchpractices.Thisshouldfollow

in conjunction with support measures for the new curricula towards facilitating higher-level

teaching. Also, separating out the implementation issues from the curriculum per se

(constructivistformsofteachingandlearning)teacherswillhavetoteachbearinginmindallthe

caveats highlighted above. However, as Westbrook et.al. (2013) rightly contend, with such

measuresnot inplacethisoftenresults inteachersrevertingto“traditional,entirelydirective

curricularapproaches”bydefault(AgyeiandVoogt,2011inWestbrooket.al.,2013:28).This

seemsinevitableintheIndiancase.

Oncomingbacktotheissueof‘Whatconstitutesqualityeducation?’,oneofthestrengthsofthe

NCF-2005guidelinesisthatithasabalancedapproach.Toelaboratefurther,itlookstoproduce

a well-rounded learner with learning areas accompanied with “work, health, yoga, physical

education,musicandart”(NCF2005:73).Ifwedefineareasonablequalityeducationasthekind

mentionedabove,whenweapply those guidelinesor criteria to theprimary curriculum, the

overallpictureonpaperlooksimpressive-ittriestobeholistic.

However,itfallsshortincertainareas.LargeemphasishasbeengiventoMathematics,Science

andEnglishincomparisontoothersubjectareas.Furthermore,althoughthecurriculumatthe

primarylevelincludeshealth,physicalandpeaceeducationasAlexander(2012)argues“those

subjectswhosecontentistobedeterminedbyeachschoolindividually--itishardtoknowhow

accountability can be meaningfully demonstrated in other than a highly localised and non-

transferablesense”(Alexander,2012:372).Acrucialargumentwhichthencomesoutofthisis

that‘standards’forprovidingqualityeducationshouldnotberestrictedtothe3R’s.Asthisstands

contradictory to curriculumbeing conceived as awhole, “addressing questions of scope and

balance inrelationto individual,culturalandeconomicneed” (Alexander,2012:379).Onthe

80

contrary,“schoolsshould…beaccountableforthequalityofthewholecurriculum,[and]notjust

partofit”(Alexander,2012:372,myparentheses).

Therefore,inordertoachievegenuinecurriculumreform,theenactmentofcurriculuminschools

andclassroomsisamuchmore“powerfuldeterminantofeducationqualityandprogressthan

the curriculum as prescribed on paper” (Alexander, 2012: 379). This assists with achieving

genuinecurriculumreform.Hence,asdelineatedthroughtheQMTs,having‘controlmeasures’

such as, teacher training, evaluation, distribution of textbooks, usage of TLMs by educators

though ensures teachers teachwhat is required. However, this affects the autonomy of the

teaching profession. And, while the curriculum needs to be taught to the highest possible

standard,howeffectivelywill the curriculumbe taught,when it “hasexpanded in scopeand

complexity beyond what the inherited pattern of generalist class teaching can sustain”

(Alexander,2012:380,authorsemphasis).

Togiveasharperorientation,letuslookbroadlyattheprimary(GradesI-V)curriculum.Thiswill

provide insight on the how the curriculum addresses learner-centredness, constructivist

pedagogyandcriticalpedagogy.

5.6.1.3.1Designfeaturesforthecurriculumatprimarylevel(GradesI-V)withinNCF-2005

Akeyfeatureoftheprimarycurriculumisanattempttointegratesubjectsusingtheprincipleof

‘horizontality’andtheuseof‘everydayknowledge’.Agoodexampleofthisistheenvironmental

science core subject. TheNCF-2005argues for science curriculumdevelopers, at theprimary

level, to integrate both 'science’ and ‘social science’, while also incorporating elements of

environmentalandhealtheducationinit.Itcorrelatesdevelopmentofscientificlearningthrough

languageskills-reading,writingandspeaking(NCERT,2006biv;NCF2005:48).ForClassesIand

II it argues for an activity based, unstructured method of pedagogic practice for facilitating

children’spaceandgroupactivities(NCERT,2006b:30).However,forClassesIIItoV,itargues

for a structured pedagogic practice method (ibid: 12-13). The curriculum embodies cross-

81

curricula themes and the chapters are thematic in its approach for blurring the boundaries

between‘scienceandsocial-science’subject.Thecontentsarescaffoldedandbuilt-upover-time.

The broad content guidelines show grade progression from simple to complex concepts.

Therefore,alearner’scognitivedevelopmentisaccountedforwheretheconceptsarenotabreak

fromoneanother,butratheranextension.

The environmental science curriculum guideline due to its thematic approach embodies

Bernstein’s (1999) ‘horizontal discourse’. These “discourses do not have explicit progression

criteriaandspecifictexts,andasaconsequencetheytendtoexistinthepresentratherthanin

thepast”(Bernstein’s1994,inWhittyet.al.,2006:34).

Thisiswheredifficultiesbegintoemerge.ScienceasasubjectisseenasanexampleofBernstein’s

(1999) ‘vertical discourse’ that should have “coherent, explicit [progression], systematically

principledstructure,[and]hierarchicallyorganised”texts(Bernstein,1999:159).Thuswhilethe

reformmayconformtoconstructivistformsofknowledgeorganizationthis‘horizontality’cross-

curricula curriculum in a way signifies “conflicts with the requirements of subjects that are

constitutedbyverticaldiscourse”(Bernstein,1995,inWhittyet.al.,2006:34).Dependingonthe

teacher’s skills and resources this ‘conflict’may have a deleterious impact on learners’ later

understandingsofscience(seeBernstein,1995,inWhittyet.al.,2006:34).Thisisanissueforall

subjectsasthepowerof‘outside’knowledgebeginstowanewiththestrengtheningofcontent

andmoreabstractconceptswithinthetextbook.

ThisraisesanotherkeyaspectoftheconstructivistapproachofNCF-2005–theavailabilityofa

varietyofTLMstosupportteachers.Asmattersstand,despitethecallforavarietyofknowledge

sourcesthereisonlyonetextbookavailablepersubjectandinconsequenceasinglecurriculum

largelyunabletoaccountfordiversityeitherculturalorlinguistic.

Asaresult,althoughthecurriculumhasbeenstrippedofitsovertgenderbiases,casteandclass

discrimination it still has a middle-class bias. Therefore, the textbooks sometimes refer to

82

examplesthatprivilegelearnerscomingfromurbanareas,butwhichlearnersinthefarendof

theruralregionswillfinddifficulttorelateto.

Thecrucialquestionthatarisesis,whatkindofalearnerdidthecurriculumdevelopershavein

mindwhiledesigningtextbooks?Likewise,whatkindofteacherdidtheplannershaveinmind?

AsClarkenotes,differencesintheculturaldimensionsofteacherswillresultinthembeingeither

“open and receptive” or “resistant and antagonistic” to the change process in thinking and

teaching(Clarke,2003:40).Howteachersconstructclassroomactivityandthe“tacitorimplicit

frameworkthatunderlietheirthinkingandactionintheclassroom”aresignificantfactorsthat

shouldbeaccountedforsuccessfulpedagogicalreform(Dayet.al.,1993,inClarke,2003:28).

Takingabroaderperspectiveonthe‘nationalnature’ofthecurriculumdelineatedbytheNCF-

2005 and its adoption by various States a crucial limitations arises in a manner where the

curriculum is applicable for those learners who are enrolled in Central Board of Secondary

Education(CBSE)schoolslocatedindifferentStates23(Surya,2008:n.p.),whilefewStates24are

aimingtowardsadoptingtheNCF-basedmaterialsinStateschools.

Thus,forequalquality,asAlexanderargues,makingwayforanationalcurriculumshouldbean

entitlementforallschoolsindifferentStatesforalllearnerstofollowand“anobligationonall

thosewhoteachinthoseschools”(2012:378).

Given the constitutional arrangements discussed previously, the extent to which these

‘obligations’aretakenupwillvarybyState.So,eventhoughalltheStateshavetakenupthe

23NCF-2005hasbeentranslatedinto22languagesandhasinfluencedthesyllabiof17States.24AfewStates,suchasGoa,Sikkim,HimachalPradeshandUttarakhandhavesoughtcopyrightpermissionforadoptingNCF-basedmaterialinStateschools(Kumar,2008,inSurya2008:n.p).CopyrightagreementofNCERTtextbookusagecanbeaccessedviatheNCERTwebsite(seewww.ncert.nic.in).

83

framework(seeChapter2,Section2.4.3:21),thereisstillavoidanceofthegoals.AsUpadhyaya

(2015)questions,“Howcansuchnon-complianceandviolationofRTEActinvokestonysilence

as a response?” (Upadhyaya, 2015: n.p.). By divesting the detailed finalising, the Acts and

implementation to the individual States, not only are rights to education in general not

necessarilyguaranteedbutalsothere isnoguaranteethattheconstructivist ideals intheAct

wouldbefollowedupbecausethereisnopoliticalsanctionforthoseStates,schoolsorteachers

thatdonotfollowit.

5.6.1.3.2IssuesassociatedwithlanguageNowdelvingdeeper intothe language issue,“language isbothasourceof identityandakey

meansbywhichpeoplecaneithergainaccesstopowerorbeexcludedfromit”(Rassool,2007,

in Westbrook et.al., 2013: 14). The medium of instruction within classroom has equity

implications(Rassool,2007,inWestbrooket.al.,2013:14).Hence,acrucialstrengthoftheNCF-

2005 is itasserts importance“on thedevelopmentof thechild's languagecompetence”as it

facilitatescreativity, independent-thinkingandcommunication.(NCF2005:67).TheNCF-2005

acknowledges and advocates for learning taking place within classrooms in mother tongue

(includingtriballanguages)irrespectiveofsmallnumberoflearners(NCF2005:67).Therefore,

inordertoachieve“unificationitendorsesthethree-languagesystem25thatwasdevelopedand

refinedby successiveeducation commissions” (CentralAdvisoryBoardof Education,1957, in

Ramanathan,2008:113).

The first language is themediumof instruction inschools.Second language is required tobe

taughtfromGrade-Vandthethirdlanguagemustbestudiedforatleastthreeyearsbetween

GradeVIandX.WhilethefirstandsecondlanguageisexaminedbytheCBSEandTheCouncilfor

25ThethreelanguageformulawasformulatedbytheUnionEducationMinistryoftheGovernmentofIndiainconsultationwiththeStates.Thisprovidesthestudyof“Hindi,EnglishandmodernIndianlanguage(preferablyoneofthesouthernlanguages)intheHindispeakingstatesandHindi,EnglishandtheRegionallanguageinthenon-HindispeakingStates"(GovernmentofIndia,2012:n.p.).

84

theIndianSchoolCertificateExamination(ICSE)inGradeXandXII,thethirdlanguageistested

internallybytheschool(Saini,2000,inRamanathan,2008:114).

Although,NCF-2005throughthe‘threelanguageformula’aimsataccountingforthemultilingual

society;disparityvialanguagecreepsintotheschoolsystemthroughprivateschoolswhogive

precedence toEnglishbyaiming“atmaking their studentsEnglish-‘able’” (Aggarwal,1991, in

Ramanathan,2008:114).Thisperceptionisfurtherbolsteredthroughpeoples’perceptionwho

give English language an “elite” status (Aggarwal, 1991, in Ramanathan, 2008: 114). As

Ramanathan (2008) rightly contends language proficiency of teachers in public and private

schoolsvariesconsiderablywheretheformeristhe“leastproficient”(Pal,2005,inRamanathan,

2008:114).

Inaddition,newspaperarticleshavebeenpublishedforcertainStates,suchas,Goa26andGujrat

wherecontinuinguncertaintyoverlanguageofinstructioninschoolshascausedfailureonthe

partoftheschoolstoengagewiththeyouthanddeveloptheState’shumanresourcepotential.

For instance, Chinai (2007) reports that inability on the State governments part to “evolve a

rational[language]transitionpolicyformediumofinstructioninschools”hasresultedinchildren

“not[being]abletocopewithdrastictransitionfromtheuseoftheirmothertongueatprimary

level,totheuseofEnglishinmiddleschool”(Chinai,2007:n.p.,myparentheses).

Apartoftheissueariseswherefirstgenerationlearnersdonotreceivenecessarysupportfrom

familymembersbecauseoftheirownlackofliteracyandlackoffinancialresourcestohiretutors.

This in turn has resulted in increased drop-out rates (Chinai, 2007: n.p.). Furthermore, as

languageofinstructiondiffersregionally,howdolearnerstowhomEnglishhasnotbeentaught

in schools undergo this medium instruction switch and transition to universities. And as

26TheeducationsystemofGoaemphasisesontheuseofanIndianlanguage-KonkaniorMarathi-atprimaryleveluptoGradefour(Chinai,2007:n.p.).

85

Ramanathan(2008)argues“linguisticissuesarestillapoliticaltool”,whereStategovernments

modifythethree-languagecodesometimesattheexpenseofnationallanguage27,withEnglish

findingpredominance(2008:122).

Thisthencallsintoquestionthehundredpercentenrolmentgoal,accessandreductionindrop-

out rate that the Indian government aims for. Hence, the national framework seemingly a

desirable policy should not be devoid of those contextual and historical factors that enables

poorestofthepoororruralpeopletohavequalityeducation.Ifqualityeducationispartlyabout

accessandnotjusttoschoolsbutalsoknowledge,thenisthatknowledgeconstructedinaway

thatenablespeopleofminoritylanguagesordifferentlanguagesofrurallybasedkidstoactually

accessknowledgeandnotaccesstoschoolsalone?

Theaforementionedelementsofthecurriculumwillinturnhaveeffectontheassessment,which

hasbeendiscussedbelowingreaterdetail.

5.6.1.4Theactivitiesare‘child-centred’ratherthan‘lesson-centred’resultingin

autonomouslearningmeasures:

With changes in pedagogic practice from rote learning to constructivism, the NCF-2005

necessitates“anewparadigmforevaluation”(Agrawal,2007:20).Amajorshiftinconducting

evaluationandassessmentscomesintheformoflearnersbeingassessedontasksrelevantto

therealworld.NCF-2005advocatesfortheIndianexamsystemtakingupamore“humanistic

anddifferentiated”(NCF2005:115)approachbybeing“open,flexible,creativeanduserfriendly”

(NCF2005:116).

27Forinstance,theTamilNadugovernmentproposedlearningofregionallanguageratherthanHindiwithEnglishlanguageescapingthiscalumny.Thiswasduetoitsincreasedutilityinthejobmarket(Ramanathan,2008:122).

86

Itadvocatesforschoolstoadopt“evaluationoftheprocessoflearning,progressoflearningand

also the product of learning” (Agrawal, 2007: 23) through an implementable scheme of

ContinuousandComprehensiveEvaluation28(CCE),primarilyforthe“diagnosis,remediationand

enhance(ment)oflearning”(NCF2005:115).Therefore,itaccommodatesindividualisedneeds

andpaceofthelearners.Inaddition,withnewandrevisedtextbooksitallowsfor“continuous

evaluationsofthemultiplicityofskillsandknowledge”acquiredbylearnersinayear(Kidwaiet.

al.,2013:18).Furthermore,asrepresentativesoftheDepartmentofEducationinScienceand

Mathematicswarrant,theNCF-2005advocatesfor“oraltesting,groupworkevaluation,open-

endedquestion,open-bookexaminationwithoutanytimelimit[and]ondemandexamination”,

methodsofassessment(NCERT,2010:41-42).

InagreementwithAgrawal(2007)theNCF-2005“stronglypropose[s]achangeinthetypology

ofquestions”forincorporatingreasoningandcreativeabilitiesreplacememorisationasthebasis

ofevaluation(Agrawal,2007:24).Aholisticapproachtoassessmenthasbeentakenbyarguing

forformulatingquestionsthathavebeencarefullyvettedbyexperts,and“couldbecategorised

according to level of difficulty, topic/area, concept/competency being evaluated and time

estimatedtosolve”(NCF2005:114).

5.6.1.4.1Assessmentattheprimarylevel(GradeI-V)

Coming to the scheme of assessment at the primary level (Grade I-V), CCE has three parts-

scholastics,co-scholasticandco-curricularactivities.Theseare tobeconductedbasedonthe

guidelinesdelineatedbytheNCERT.Whilethescholasticsdomainisgradedonafive-pointscales

(fromA[4.1-5.0]toE[0-1.0]).Theco-scholasticsdomainisgradedonanine-pointscale(fromA1

[91-100] through E2 [0-20]). The co-curricular activity falls within the co-scholastics domain.

28CCEwasprimarilyplannedforevaluatingsecondaryschoollearners.However,itlaterpermeatedtolowergrades(Kidwaiet.al.,2013:18).

87

Thesehavedescriptiveindicatorsforwhichthelearnersarecontinuouslyobservedandallotted

marks(Nawani,2013:35).

Furthermore,theNCF-2005doesnotadvocateforformalassessmentforGrades-IandII.Rather,

generalobservationmadebytheteacheronvariousaspects,suchas,interests,abilities,skills,

statusofhealthandotheraspectsofthechildshouldbetheformofassessment.ForGrades-III-

V,CCEshouldbepropagatedandassessmentsshouldincorporatereadingability,articulation,

languagecomprehensionandobservation(NCERT,2006a:13).Lastly,attheprimarystage(Grade

I-V)itadvocatesfor“noformalperiodictest,noawardingofgradesormarks,andnodetention29”

(NCF2005:48;seeAppendix-3).

Hence,NCF-2005advocatesforanongoingratherthanaone-timeevaluationmethodwhichit

argueshasimportantstrengths.Theyare(Agrawal,2007:21-22)firstly,astressonthe‘process’

oflearningratherthantheendproduct.Second,itiscontextdrivenandstudent-centred.Third,

it“allowsfordifferentinterpretationofknowledgeandmeaning”inturnbeinglessrestrictive

(p.23).And lastly, suchanassessmentnotonlyassess “learningasanend in itselfbutalsoa

means” for improving one’s teaching-learning processes and provide enhanced support to

students(Nawani,2013:34).

Nonetheless, irrespective of the above highlighted strengths limitations associatedwith such

methodsofevaluationremain.Theyare:

• Keepingindividualrecordofstudents’assessmentturnsintoaconstantstruggleforan

alreadyoverworkedteacher(Nawani,2013:36).

• The multiple modes of assessment proposed exposes the whole child who is now

“subject[ed]toobservation,surveillanceandcontrol”(Bernstein,1978inNawani,2013:

29Non-detentionreferstostudentsnotbeingdetainedinthesameclassduetounsatisfactoryperformance.RathertheNCF-2005recommendsremedialmeasuresforimprovingperformance(NCERT,2010:42).

88

35).Thisblurringofboundaryparticularlyattheco-curriculaarena,resultinginemphasis

onthewholechildmayonthecontraryaggravatestressforstudents(Nawani,2013:35).

• Replacingmarkswithgrades(since2010),willhavesimilarimplicationashigherlearning

instituteswillcontinuetoperceivegradesasproofofleanersabilitytoperform(ibid:35).

This will create possibilities for analysing “the quality and consistency of various

examiners”(NCF2005:115).

• AdvocatingthatCCEprovidesamorerealisticpictureofthelearnerassumesthatschools

will have skilled teachers who are capable of supporting students in their growth in

multipledimension.

• CCEembodiesassessingovertbehaviouralpatternandasNawani(2013)questions,could

ateacherbetrainedtomake‘finedistinctions’betweenbehaviouralpatterns?(2013:37).

Furthermore,askingchildrentoself-reporton their learning for facilitating insightson

their educational progress and providing “feedback on improving curriculum or

pedagogy”againsoundsabitpreposterous(NCF2005:74).

• AssumingthatteacherstrainedinthephilosophyandtechniqueofCCE,willautomatically

ensureitssuccessfulimplementationignorestheconstraintsthatdifferingculturalback-

groundsoftheteacherandlearnerimposes.Thisdemands“delearningofconventional

[pedagogic]approachesandrelearningofemerging[pedagogic]approaches”(Pandey,

2011:11).

Inall,CCE,whichfindsitsrootsintheRTEAct(2009),whileaspiringtomoveawayfromrote-

learningandtext-bookknowledgeishighlyunlikelytoachieveitsgoals.AsNawani(2013)argues

CCEisbeingproposedasa“panaceaforallexamination-relatedillswithnoclearexplanationof

itsmeaning”(Nawani,2013:34).Throughthedescriptorsitindirectlyspecifiesthekindof“skills,

attitudes, disposition and knowledge” it aims for its learners to attain irrespective of the

“pluralitiesthatchildrenbelongingtodifferentcommunitiesmayrepresent”(Nawani,2013:38).

CCE’ssubjectivenaturehasnotbeenaddressedbyNCF-2005.Also,sinceitactsasatemplatefor

other State education departments, this may have implications that may not have been

considered.

89

Asaresult,thevalueswhichNCF-2005advocatesforconductingCCEcontradicts“boththespirit

andmannersuggestedforitsexecution”(Nawani,2013:39).Classroomcultureandpedagogic

practicesarecrucialcomponentsthatfacilitateeffectiveCCE.Hence,exhaustiveandextensive

processesforconductingtheassessment,doesanythingbutempowertheteachertoassesstheir

students(Nawani,2013:39).

Henceforward, Iwillnowdelvedeeper into systemic reforms, teacher trainingprocessesand

learning materials, to analyse how have these been addressed for facilitating successful

implementationofthecurriculumandassessment.

5.6.2Teacher-trainingprocesses

Movingfurtherintoothercriteria,whilethecurriculum,pedagogy,assessmentandexperiences

intendedforlearnersisinlinewiththeeducationalaims,theseexperiencescannotbeattained

withoutconsideringthepre-andin-serviceteacher-trainingprogrammes

While the in-service training is conducted via a large number of government-owned teacher

traininginstitutions(TTIs)(MHRD,2016:n.p.),thepre-servicetrainingisplannedandcoordinated

by the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), a statutory body of the Central

Government. The pre-service teacher education curriculum is intended to develop

professionalismandinfuseconfidenceinteachers(Pandey,2011:4).AsPandey(2011)reports,

the current National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE-2009)30 “tries to

ensurethatteachersarealign[ed]withtheepistemologicalshift[fromtraditionalbehavioristto

30TheNCFTE-2009wasbasedontheguidelinesdelineatedinNCF-2005,andtheprincipleslaiddownintheRightofChildrentoFreeandCompulsoryEducationAct,2009(Saigal,2012:1016).

90

constructivist discourses that accounts for pedagogical shifts, context and concerns of the

learner]envisagedintheNCF-2005”(Pandey,2011:9).

Nevertheless,groundobservationstelladifferentstory.AsPandey(2011)reports,thecurrent

teacher education programmes “continue to prescribe [the] traditional approach of

psychological, philosophical and sociological basis of education” (Pandey, 2011: 11).

Furthermore,while the content and themes in the teacher education curricula reflect a few

changes;discrepanciesintheteacherpreparationprogrammedurationspecifiedbytheNCFTE-

2009(which isfortwoyears)andtheactualcourse(which isforoneyear)arises(ibid:11).A

crucialcriticism,asPandey(2011)highlights,isthatregardlessofconstructivismbeingadvocated

by the NCF-2005 “efforts and achievements of the learners are still being evaluated using

behaviouristapproachesand[a]quantitativegradingsystem”(Pandey,2011:11).Thistherefore,

callsintoquestiontheprogressivelearner-centredpedagogythattheNCF-2005advocatesfor.

Also, changes in the teacher curriculum does not guarantee that implementation will

automaticallytakeplace.Putsimply,thein-serviceteacher-trainingprogrammearenotequipped

todealwith“powerfulideas”,suchas,learner-centredness,activity-basedlearningandcontext

drivencurriculum(NCERT,2008:8).

Apartfromineffectiveteacher-trainingprogrammes,insufficientfundingalsohinderseffective

pedagogicpracticeinclassrooms.Toelaboratefurther(NCERT,2008):

• The Central Government largely supporting funding for education through pre-

determinedschemesresultsininsufficientdivisionoffundsbetweentheCentralandthe

StateGovernment. The fundsallocatedareoften insufficient therebyaffecting States’

Governmentsabilitytoachieveuniversaleducation(p.17).

• Aninadequatenumberofteachersinarapidlyexpandingschoolsystemwithlimitedfiscal

investments in teacher training programmes has resulted in the rapid erosion of the

statusofteachers.Forinstance,15%(95,588)ofallprimaryschoolsaresingleclassroom

schoolswith95%ofthemlocatedinruralareas.Outofthese,17.51%(111,635)ofschools

haveonlyoneteacher.Of thesesingle-teacherschools,96%are located inruralareas

91

(DISE,NIEPA,2005,inNCERT,2008:6).Thishighlightstheneedfortrainingandallocating

agreaternumbersofskilledteacherstoruralareas(p.6).

Inall,thecurrentpre-serviceandin-serviceteachertrainingprogrammesareunlikelytoproduce

the shift in pedagogic practice, from rote-memorization to teaching for understanding and

innovativenessasopposed to time tested traditionalmethods (Pandey,2011:11).Theabove

factors will have implications for carrying out effective pedagogic practices and conducting

assessments,whichmaybecomeamechanicalprocessratherthanbeingcreativeandcomesat

thecostofteaching.

Inall,recognisingthemultipleconstrainsinitiatingfromthecurrentpre-andin-serviceteacher

training,necessitatesacallforamoresystemictaskanalysisofteachersandsupportmeasures

atthevariouslevels.Hence,thiswillrequireconsiderablestructuralandprocesschangesthat

theabovediscussionshavesoughttooutline.

5.7Conclusion

Basedontheaboveanalysispresented,itcanbearguedthatthe‘quality’issueoperatesontwo

levels-firstonthepoliticallevel,andsecondontheeducationallevel.

Atthepoliticallevel,the‘quality’issuecomesintheformofdifferingviewpointspresentbetween

the Central and the State governments. The political situation enables States to deliberately

misinterpretkeyaspectsparticularly those relevant toaccessand inclusion.Hence,while the

QMTssupportstheCentralGovernmentintheinterpretationof‘quality’educationattainedat

theStatelevel.TherearedifficultiesseenwhentheQMTusesthetoolforkeepingpeoplewithin

theguidelines.Forinstance,whilemonitoringtoolaimsatdecentralisation.Butwithstandard

formattingproceduretobefollowedatthevariouslevelshighlightsthecomplexitythatarises

duetothiscentralisationofmonitoring‘quality’education.Moreover,itdoesnotcoversufficient

quality issues and the amount of paper work generated makes it an even impractical tool.

92

Therefore,thisrepresentsadrawbackonanadministrativeimplementationlevel.Despitethe

discourse that the broad NCF-2005 framework presents (a secular, social, democratic and

professionalethicstheoryofeducation),theQMTsarelikelytopushtheteachers,inadvertently

perhaps,towardsthetraditional framesofpedagogicpractice.Hence,hereonebeginstosee

NCF-2005 and the QMTs being interpreted as ‘text’ that is representative of the various

stakeholders,governmentrepresentative,educationistsandteachersandthereforefollowedby

groundactors.

Attheeducationallevel,the‘quality’issueoperatesinwaysinwhichtheaimsofpolicyhavebeen

encodedinthecurriculumguidelinesanditsenactmentbygroundactors.Thebroadover-arching

discourse on ‘quality’ flows through into the descriptions of the actual curriculum. While

constructivismpromisesabetterqualityeducationbecauseof itsaccommodationofdiversity

(veryrelevantintheIndiancontext),theimplementationofthisisdifficult.Thus,thecurriculum

guidelineissparseandvague,inordertoaccommodatedifferentcontextualinterpretationsof

qualityeducation.Hence,hereonebeginstoseecurriculumasboth‘discourse’and‘text’,where

implementershavetotakeonthenewparadigmbutalsotrytoimplementitintheirrespective

contexts.Asindicatedthough,anattempthasbeenmadetocontrolthedegreeofinterpretation

throughtheprovisionofthesingletextbooksandtheQMTs.Thisisaconstanttensionthatruns

through theeducation systemas thepolitical and cultural requirementsof the stake-holders

needtobeaccommodated.

Intermsofthecurriculumitselfandtheorganisationofcontent,itrepresents‘horizontality’in

knowledge discourse in an attempt towards making it inclusive by accommodating relevant

contextualfeatureoflearnerslives.However,animmediatedifficultyassociatedwiththisarises

wherethereisapossibilityofinsufficientgroundingwhenstudentsmoveontosubjectorcontent

areasthataremoreverticallydefined.

Movingfurtherintotheimplementationstoryofteachers,whoaretheforefrontofpromoting

theaboveideals,wouldrequirepropertrainingandmaterialsupport.Butashighlightedabove,

93

theteacher-trainingisproblematic,andthetextbookscouldbeconsideredproblematicwhere

theimplementationofthecontentthattakesaccountofthelearners’environmentislargelyleft

atthejurisdictionoftheteachers,particularlyinrurallevel.Thisgoesagainsttheconstructivist

frame. It’s contradictory in proposing the same content, same logicwithin a framework that

demandsvarietyforpromotinginclusivity.Therefore,inthissense,thegoaltowardsachieving

‘quality’ education is being lost. Hence, the pragmatic implementation- none of which are

impossibletoovercomeinthelongrun,butisconfoundedbythetextbooksandtheorganisation

ofthecurriculum.Moreover,withassessmentsrunningalongsideofthecurriculum,whichisnot

mandatoryontheteacherstofollow,mayfurtherreinforcetraditionalassessmentforms.This

highlightsthetensionand/orcomplexitiesthatoperateattheeducationallevel.

Consequently,NCF-2005whileaiming toanswer thequestion "Whyhaseducationbecomea

burdenratherthanasourceofjoy?"(Surya,2008:n.p.),sufferslimitationsbynotaccountingfor

theshiftrequiredinteacherswhoarenotdivorcedfromtheirownpoliticalandsocialcontexts

andwhomayfindthechangesverydifficulttoaccept.

Thus,theanalysispresentedabovehighlightsomeofthedifficultiesassociatedwithcurriculum

policy developmentwithin the policy framework. The attributes of 'quality',which is that as

'noun'becomesafunctionofpolitical,administrationandpubliccontention.

Andso, the issueofquality iscontentiousandanelusiveone.AsSayed (1997) rightlyargues

quality isneverrepresented inamannerthathighlightsthecompeting ideological,socialand

politicalinfluencesonthedefinition.Theideologicalinfluencescomeintheformofcompeting

interests, which can be divided into educational progressives vs. behaviourists. The political

interestscomewithpoliticiansandgovernmentshavingdifferingagendas.Andboththeseare

influencedby the social, that is,what interpretationdoparents, society and learners give to

quality?Alloftheaboveaffectthedesiredmannerofinterpretationfurtheraffectingtheprocess

ofcoordinatedchangeatthenationalandorganizationallevel.

94

Hence,basedontheanalysispresentedaboveitisclearthatqualitycannotbeansweredinana

priorifashion.Inordertotrulyaddresstheissueof‘quality’ineducationintheIndiancontexta

closerexaminationoftheideologicalshift,scaleandnatureofchangethattheframeworkaims

toachievedemandsfutureintervention.

95

ChapterSix:Conclusion

Thisthesisbeganwithanexaminationofthe ‘quality’ issueasaddressedbytheNCF-2005. In

ordertodothisamodelcomprisingtwomainelementsof‘quality’wasconstructed.Thesewere

quantitativeandhumanisticlenses.IntheIndiancaseprogresshasbeenmadeintermsofthe

quantitativeindicators–improvedaccess,areductionindrop-outrates,increasedliteracyrates

for youth and a better inclusion of minority group members. As discussed, this focus on

measurableoutcomesisanecessarystepinachievingquality.

However,thesemeasuresarenotsufficient,andthehumanisticindicators,whichIarguedbetter

capturetheconceptof‘quality’havebeendownplayed.Thiswasseeninthenationalmonitoring

documents – the QMTs, the texts, and the lack of teacher training to implement the new

curriculum.Despitethis,theaimsofthecurriculumandthemovementtowardshumanisticideals

representamajoradvanceforeducationalthinkingintheIndiancontext.

Onexaminingthepolicydocuments,itbecameclearthattheproblemdoesnotnecessarilylie

withthequalityindicatorsorthedefinitionofquality.Onthecontrarythedifficultyliesfarmore

with complex implementation issues. These relate to firstly, the political tensions that exist

betweenCentralGovernmentandtheStateswhichresultedintheNCF-2005frameworkbeing

very ‘loose’ so as to preserve the States’ autonomy, but which opened the way for non-

compliance.Secondly,onaneducational level,astheanalysis inChapter5demonstrates,the

contextsoftheteachersandschoolswerenotpaidsufficientattention.Inthisregard(andthis

maypartlybeafunctionofscale)manyteachersareuntrainedorunpreparedforthedemands

ofaconstructivistcurriculumwithaconsequentslippagebacktotraditionalmethodsofteaching.

ThisisreinforcedbyQMTswhichfocuson‘traditional’indicatorsofprogress.

In these ways issues related to ‘quality’ gets disrupted due to differing political, social and

educationideologiesfromtheCentralGovernmentthroughtotheStates.Ultimately,whatwe

havethenislargelyanadministrativeandpoliticaldefinitionasopposedtoaneducationalone.

96

ThisdoesnotnecessarilymakeNCF-2005abadpolicy.Nevertheless,sincetheoverallissuehere

isaroundquality, thefirstquestionthatarises is, ‘Is theeducationalreformlargelyapolitical

story?Orisitapowergamebeingplayedoutagainstopposition?Orisitagenuineeducational

reform?’Interestingly,theNCF-2005symbolizesalloftheabove,whichfurtherbolstersTrowler’s

(2003)argumentofpolicybeinga‘messy’process.Inthiscaseitwasaprocesscarriedoutlargely

without reference to the ground actors. The subsequent gap between the policy and its

implementationshouldthereforenotbesurprising.

Andit isperhapsinrecognitionofthisthatNCF-2005,althoughastepforward, isgoingtobe

revisedprobablyin2017,oncethenewNPEisfinalised.

WordCount:25,404

97

References

Agrawal,M.(2007).ConstructivismandPupilEvaluation.JournalofIndianEducation.NCERT.XXXIII,Number1,5-15

Alexander,R.(2008).EducationforAll,thequalityimperativeandtheproblemofpedagogy.CREATEResearchMonographNumber20,Brighton:CIE,UniversityofSussex.

Alexander,R.(2012).NeitherNationalnoraCurriculum.FORUM,54,3,369-384.

Babu,Ramesh.B.(2007).SchoolingforSocialTransformation:NeedforCriticalPedagogy.JournalofIndianEducation.NCERT.XXXIII,Number1,5-15

Ball,S.J.(1993).Whatispolicy?Texts,trajectoriesandtoolboxes.InEducationpolicyandsocialclass.TheselectedworksofStephenJ.Ball.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Chapter3,43-53.[AlsoinDiscourse,1993,13,2,10-17]

Ball,S.J.(2006).WhatisPolicy?Texts,trajectoriesandtoolboxes.InEducationPolicyandSocialClass.TheSelectedWorksofStephenJBall.LondonandNewYork.Routledge.

Ball,S.J.,Maguire,M.,&Braun,A.(2012).Howschoolsdopolicy:policyenactmentsinsecondaryschools.Routledge.

Ball,S.J.(2012).Politicsandpolicymakingineducation:Explorationsinpolicysociology.Abingdon:Routledge

Ball,S.J.(2015).Whatispolicy?21yearslater:reflectionsonthepossibilitiesofpolicyresearch.Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,(July),1–8.Availableat:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279.

Barrett,A.,Chawla-Duggan,M.,Rita,R.,Nikel,J.,Jutta.,&Ukpo,E.(2006).Theconceptofqualityineducation:areviewofthe“international”literatureontheconceptofqualityineducation.WorkingPaperNumber3,EdQualRPC.Availableat:http://opus.bath.ac.uk/15738/

Batra,P.(2005).VoiceandAgencyofTeachers:MissinglinkinNationalCurriculumFramework2005.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,Vol.40,No.40(Oct.1-7,2005),4347-4356

Barrett,M.A.,&Sorensen,B.T.(2015).IndicatorsforAll?MonitoringqualityandEquityforaBroadandBoldPost-2015GlobalEducationAgenda.OpenSocietyFoundations.UniversityofBristol.i-45

98

Beeby,C.E.(1966).Thequalityofeducationindevelopingcountries.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Bernstein,B.(1975).Onclassificationandframingofeducationalknowledge.Class,codesandcontrol.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,3,77-106

Bernstein,B.(1999).VerticalandHorizontalDiscourse:Anessay.BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation,20(2),157–173.

Bowe,R.,Ball,S.J.,withGold,A.(1992).ReformingEducationandChangingSchools:CaseStudiesinPolicySociology.London,Routledge.

Bowen,G.A.(2009).DocumentAnalysisasaQualitativeResearchMethod.QualitativeResearchJournal,9(2),27-40.

Chauhan,C.P.S.(2009).EducationforallinIndia:Asecondlook.InternationalJournalofLifelongEducation,28(2),227–240.

Cheney,R.G.,Ruzzi,B.B.,andMuralidharan,K.(2005).AprofileoftheIndianEducationSystem.PaperpreparedfortheNewCommissionontheSkillsoftheAmericanWorkforce.NationalCenteronEducationandtheEconomy.1-28.

Clarke,P.(2003)CultureandClassroomReform:ThecaseoftheDistrictPrimaryEducationProject,India.ComparativeEducation,39,1,27-44,DOI:10.1080/03050060302562.Availableat:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050060302562

Cross,M.,Mungadi,R.&Rouhani,S.(2002).Frompolicytopractice:CurriculumreforminSouthAfricaneducation.ComparativeEducation.38,2,171-187.

Dasgupta,K.A.(1996),Gandhi’sEconomicThought.LondonandNewYork:RoutledgeChapter7,132-150.Availableat:https://books.google.co.za/books?id=laWHAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=school+of+thought+for+education+by+gandhi&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=school%20of%20thought%20for%20education%20by%20gandhi&f=false

Delors,J.andet.al.(1996).LearningtheTreasurewithin,ReporttoUNESCOoftheInternationalCommissiononEducationfortheTwenty-firstCentury.Paris:UNESCO.

FICCI(2014).Privatesector’scontributiontoK-12educationinIndia:Currentimpact,challengesandwayforward.1-69

Fiske,E.&Ladd,H.(2003).Outcomes-basededucationandequity.InEquity:Educationreforminpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.Pretoria:BrookingsInstitutePressandHSRCPress

99

Gilmour,J.D.(1997).SchoolperformanceindicatorsinDevelopingcountries.NationalWorkshopontheUseofIndicatorstoMonitorandEvaluateSchoolPerformance.Canada-SouthAfricaEducationManagementProgramme.1-27

Gilmour,J.D.(2001).Intentionorintension?RecenteducationreformsinSouthAfricaInternationalJournalofEducationalDevelopment,21,5–19

GovernmentofIndia.(1986).NPE-1986:AProgrammeofAction(1986)(NewDelhi:MHRD).

GovernmentofIndia.(1992).NationalPolicyonEducation(NPE)-1986anditsRevisedVersion-1992(NewDelhi:MHRD).

GovernmentofIndia.(2016).RighttoEducation.MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment.DepartmentofSchoolEducationandLiteracy.Availableat:http://mhrd.gov.in/rte

Jandhyala,B.G.T.(1989).Center-StateRelationsinFinancingEducationinIndia.ComparativeEducationReview,33,4(Nov.,1989),450-480

Kidwai,H.,Burnette,D.,Rao,S.,Nath,S.,Bajaj,M.&Bajpai,N.(2013).ThePolicyandPracticeofPublicPrimaryCurriculuminIndia–AstudyofTextbooksinPublicPrimarySchoolsofDistrictMorigaon(Assam)andDistrictMedak(AndhraPradesh).ColumbiaGlobalCenters.MumbaiWorkingPaperSeries(No.11).Availableat:http://globalcenters.columbia.edu/mumbai/files/globalcenters_mumbai/MDEP_WP11_Textbooks%20Website.pdf

Kremer,M.,Muralidharan,K.,Chaudhury,N.,Hammer,J.,Rogers,H.F.(2005).TeacherAbsenceinIndia:ASnapshot.JournaloftheEuropeanEconomicAssociation,3,(2-3),658-667.

Kumar,K.(2007).EFAandthequalitydebate:PerspectivefromIndia’sNationalCurriculumFramework,2005.CREATELecture,London,LondonInternationalDevelopmentCentre.

Lall,Marie.(2007).AreviewofconceptsfrompolicystudiesrelevantfortheanalysisofEFAinDevelopingcountries.CREATEResearchMonographNo11,Brighton:CIE,UniversityofSussex.

Læssøe,J.,Feinstein,W.N.,andBlum,N.(2013).Environmentaleducationpolicyresearch–challengesandwaysresearchmightcopewiththem.EnvironmentalEducationResearch,19,2,231-242,DOI:10.1080/13504622.2013.778230

Lingard,B.et.al.(2015).TwospecialpapersinthisissueofDiscourse.Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,36(3),303–305.Availableat:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01596306.2015.1025637.

100

Maxwell,J.A.(1992).Understandingandvalidityinqualitativeresearch.HarvardEducationalReview,62(3),279-300.

MinistryofEducation.(2000).Chapter3:Structureanddesignofthecurriculum.ASouthAfricanCurriculumforthe21stcentury.ReportoftheReviewCommitteeonC2005.Pretoria:MinistryofEducation.

MinistryofHumanResourceandDevelopment[MHRD.](2004).SarvaShikshaAbhiyan:ProgrammeforuniversalelementaryeducationinIndia.NewDelhi:DepartmentforElementaryEducationandLiteracy.April,1-164

MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment.(2014).EducationalStatisticsataGlance.BureauofPlanning,MonitoringandStatistics.NewDelhi.1-40.

MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment.(2016).TeacherEducation.DepartmentofSchoolEducationandLiteracy.LastAccessed:20June2016

Naik,J.P.(1962)."TheRoleoftheGovernmentofIndiainEducation,"inEducationalStudiesandInvestigations(NewDelhi:NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining,1962),1-32.

Nawani,D.(2013).ContinuouslyandComprehensivelyEvaluatingChildren.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly.XLVIII,2,33-40

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining.(1988).NationalCurriculumforElementaryandSecondaryEducation1988.NewDelhi.Availableat:http://epathshala.nic.in/wp-content/doc/NCF/Pdf/NCESE_1988.pdf

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining.(2000).NationalCurriculumFramework2000.NewDelhi.

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining.(2005).NationalCurriculumFramework2005.NewDelhi.

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchTraining.(2006a).Position:Paper:NationalFocusGrouponExaminationReforms.NewDelhi.2.5,i-28.

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchTraining.(2006b).PositionPaper:NationalFocusGrouponTeachingofScience.NewDelhi.1.1,iii-38

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchTraining(2006c).Syllabus:ElementaryLevel.NewDelhi.1,i-v.

101

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchTraining.(2008).PositionPaper:NationalFocusGrouponSystemicreformsforCurriculumChange.NewDelhi.2.2,iii-26

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchTraining(2010).Q&AScienceandMathematicsinNCF-2005:Upperprimary,SecondaryandHigherSecondaryStages:KeyissuesandConcernsofNCF-2005forScienceandMathematicsRe-emphasisedfortheirEasyImplementation.DepartmentofEducationinScienceandMathematics.NewDelhi.iii-70

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining.(2013).ImplementationofQualityMonitoringTools:QualityManagementinelementaryeducationunderSSA.DepartmentofElementaryEducation.Delhi:NCERT

NationalUniversityofEducationPlanningandAdministration.(2014).EducationforAll2015NationalReviewReport:India.i-131.Availableat:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002298/229873E.pdf

Njeng’ere,D.(2014).Theroleofcurriculuminfosteringnationalcohesionandintegration:Opportunitiesandchallenges.IBEWorkingPapersonCurriculumIssuesN˚11,UNESCO:InternationalBureauofEducation.2-11

NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining.(2015).MonitoringFormatsforQualityDimensionsUnderSSA:ToolsforMonitoring.Delhi:NCERT

OECD.(2014).EducationataGlance:OECDIndicators.Paris:OECD

Omercajic,K.(2015).InvestigatingTrans-AffirmativeEducationPoliciesandPracticesinOntario.September,ii-181

Pandey,S.(2011).ProfessionalizationofteachereducationinIndia:Acritiqueofteachereducationcurriculumreformsanditseffectiveness.24thinternationalcongressforschooleffectivenessandimprovement:stateoftheartteachereffectivenessandprofessionallearning,Limassol,Cyprus.January

Patnaik,P.(1993)."Fascismofourtimes".SocialScientist.21(3/4),69–77.Availableat:doi:10.2307/3517631.JSTOR3517631.

Raina,Vinod.(2005).Comment.ForestsandTribals:Asymposiumontheproposedbillrecognisingtribalsrightsonforestlands.No.552,August.n.p.

Ramanathan,H.(2008).TestingofEnglishinIndia:Adevelopingconcept.LanguageTesting.SAGEPublications(LosAngeles,London,NewDelhiandSingapore),25,1,111-126.DOI:10.1177/0265532207083747

102

Saigal,Anju.(2012).Demonstratingasituatedlearningapproachforin-serviceteachereducationinruralIndia:TheQualityEducationProgrammeinRajasthan.TeacherandTeacherEducation,28,1009-1017

S,P.Sajitha.andNath,K.B.(2009).ResearchPerspectivesinissuebasedcurriculumandcriticalpedagogy.1-13

Sabatier,P.(1986).Top-downandbottom-upapproachestoimplementationresearch:acriticalanalysisandsuggestedsynthesis.JournalofPublicPolicy,6,1,21-48.

Silbert,P.(2008).Understandinginfluencesinpolicy-making:Whole-schoolEvaluationandDiscourse-Acritique.UniversityofCapeTown.1-93.

Spillane,P.J.,Reiser,Brian.J.,Reimer,T.(2002).PolicyImplementationandCognition:ReframingandRefocusingImplementationResearch.ReviewofEducationalResearch.Fall2002,72,3,387-431

Spillane,P.J.(1999).Externalreforminitiativesandteachers’effortstoreconstructtheirpractice:themediatingroleofteachers’zonesofenactment.JournalofCurriculumstudies,31,2,143-175

Subramaniam,C.N.(2003).“NCERT’sNationalCurriculumFramework:AReview”.RevolutionaryDemocracy.Vol.IX,No.2,September.

Torres,R.M.(2001).Whathappenedattheworldeducationforum?.AdultEducationandDevelopment,45-68.

Trowler,P.(2003).Makingeducationpolicy.InEducationPolicy.Secondedition.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Chapter3,95-122

UNESCO.(2004).EducationforAll:TheQualityImperative(EFAGlobalMonitoringReport2005).Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCO.(2013).UNESCOHandbookonEducationPolicyAnalysisandProgramming.Bangkok:UNESCO.1,III-82

UNESCO.(2014).TeachingandLearning:Achievingqualityforall(EFAGlobalMonitoringReport2013/4).Paris:UNESCO

UNESCO.(2015a).EducationforAll2000-2015:AchievementsandChallenges(EFAGlobalMonitoringReport2015).Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCO.(2015b).PromisingEFApracticesintheAsia-Pacificregion.IndiaSarvaShikshaAbhiyan[SSA].BangkokOffice:UNESCO.Availableat:http://ssa.nic.in/.

103

Watson,K.andOzanne,I.William.(2013).EducationandReligion:GlobalPressures,LocalResponses.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.1-160.Availableat:https://books.google.co.za/books?id=oaTdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=the+political+party+during+NCF+2000&source=bl&ots=7jCCGUexz0&sig=DcqoNKCgjY6bWeJluaS410ZEoTM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%20political%20party%20during%20NCF%202000&f=false

WestbrookJ.,DurraniN,BrownR,OrrD,PryorJ,BoddyJ,SalviF.(2013).Pedagogy,Curriculum,TeachingPracticesandTeacherEducationinDevelopingCountries.FinalReport.EducationRigorousLiteratureReview.DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment.

Whitty,G.,Rowe,G.,Aggleton,P.(1994).DiscourseinCross-curricularContexts:limitstoempowerment.InternationalStudiesinSociologyofEducation.4:1,25-42Availableat:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0962021940040102.

Newspaperarticles/report:

A,Deepa.,2005.“NewCurriculumFramework:Afewchaptersshort”.IndiaTogether.7December.Availableat:file:///Users/anshusaha/Desktop/EFA-essay%20papers/India%20Together_%20A%20few%20chapters%20short_%20Deepa%20A%20-%2007%20December%202005.html

A,Deepa.,2006.“Aninstructionsetforteachers”.IndiaTogether.13March.Availableat:http://indiatogether.org/tchtrain-education

"BJPobjectsto"De-toxification"ofNCERTtextbooks".BJP.1July2005.Archivedfromtheoriginalon21February2005.Retrieved9October2007.Availableat:https://web.archive.org/web/20050221194653/http://www.bjp.org:80/today/July_0104/Page_13.htm

Chinai,R.(2007).“Goawrestleswithlanguageinschools”.IndiaTogether.6February2007.Availableat:http://indiatogether.org/goalingo-education

Dhawan,H.(2013).“NationalCurriculumFrameworkadoptedby50%statesonly”.TimesofIndia.15May2013.Availableat:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/National-Curriculum-Framework-adopted-by-50-states-only/articleshow/20072474.cms

ETBureau.(2010).“Centre,statestoshareRTEexpensesin68:32ratio”.TheEconomicTimes.30July.Availableat:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/centre-states-to-share-rte-expenses-in-6832-ratio/articleshow/6235330.cms

104

EveB.St-Cyr.(n.d.).“InfluenceofNyerereonAfricanPoliticalThought”.Synonym,DemandMedia.LastAccessed:29September2016.Availableat:http://classroom.synonym.com/influence-nyerere-african-political-thought-20442.html

GovernmentofIndia.(2012)."ThreeLanguageFormula".MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopmentDepartmentofEducation.Archivedfromtheoriginalon22February2012.Retrieved16May2016.

GovernmentofIndia.(2016).“RighttoEducation”.ElementaryEducation.MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment.DepartmentofSchoolEducationandLiteracy.Availableat:http://mhrd.gov.in/rte

InternationalReligiousFreedomReport(IRFR)2005:India.BureauofDemocracy,HumanRights,andLabor.USDepartmentofState.Retrieved10April2015.Availableat:http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2005/51618.htm

Subramaniam,C.N.(2003).“NCERT’sNationalCurriculumFramework:AReview”.RevolutionaryDemocracy.Vol.IX,No.2,September.Availableat:http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv9n2/ncert.htm

Surya,Vasantha.(2008).“Teachingprofessionisinadeepcrisis”:InterviewwithProf.KrishnaKumar,DirectoroftheNCERT.Frontline.TheHindu.25,05,March01-14,2008.Availableat:http://www.frontline.in/navigation/?type=static&page=flonnet&rdurl=fl2505/stories/20080314250509200.htm

Upadhyaya,H.(2015).“Non-complianceandviolationsofRTEActinTNschools”.IndiaTogether.29October2015.Availableat:http://indiatogether.org/cag-reports-for-tn-schools-education

Varmal,S.(2015).“1in5primaryteachersunqualified”.TheTimesofIndia.5April2015.Availableat:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/1-in-5-primary-teachers-unqualified/articleshow/46809604.cms

Relevantwebsites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2004.Lastaccessed:30August2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony.Lastaccessed:15September2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduled_Castes_and_Scheduled_Tribes

105

http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=166

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IND

http://europeandcis.undp.org/blog/2013/06/28/policy-2-0-can-we-move-beyond-the-classic-policy-cycle/file:///Users/anshusaha/Desktop/1977-10+2+3%20system%20of%20education_%20The%20new%20class%20structure%20_%20Cover%20Story%20-%20India%20Today.html

http://classroom.synonym.com/influence-nyerere-african-political-thought-20442.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_For_All

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-all/efa-goals/

http://en.unesco.org/gem-report/node/6

http://www.azimpremjifoundation.org/pdf/Final_Minutes_NCF_Review_workshops.pdf

http://www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/Krishna_Kumar_lecture.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education#Australia.Lastaccessed:27September2016.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv9n2/ncert.htm

http://indiatogether.org/tchtrain-education

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/impAccess/ResearchingtheIssuesNo72.pdf

http://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Legislation/White%20paper/Education%20%20White%20Paper%206.pdf?ver=2008-03-05-104651-000

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140224e.pdf

http://www.india-seminar.com/2005/552/552%20comment.htm

https://johnparankimalil.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/salient-features-of-national-curriculum-framework-2005/LastAccessed:22August2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCERT_textbook_controversies#cite_note-IRFR2005-10

http://www.slideshare.net/nataliea/the-limitations-of-constructivism-2658207

106

http://educ107mq.blogspot.co.za/p/cases-against-constructivism.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education#AustraliaS

http://www.educationworldonline.net/index.php/page-article-choice-more-id-410

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/09/05/stories/2005090501141000.htm

http://episteme4.hbcse.tifr.res.in/review-volume/9-batra

RefertotheIndianEducationSystem:https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j2dwx8FfCS0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=JP+NAIK&ots=Km8WqNJ6xY&sig=etxlFaRkp-nObGR2-OAgtFKRF_w&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=JP%20NAIK&f=false

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=8wPNK8CwFKoC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=teachers+voice+of+the+NCF-2005&source=bl&ots=gHPA7Ghy7O&sig=dmILc203ZiHl6ioYNndibjMNsEo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=teachers%20voice%20of%20the%20NCF-2005&f=false

https://web.archive.org/web/20090919172506/http://education.nic.in/Elementary/free%20and%20compulsory.pdf.Archivedfromtheoriginalon19September2009.Retrieved8February2016

CopyrightAgreementofNCERTtextbooks:Availableat:http://www.ncert.nic.in/announcements/oth_announcements/pdf_files/agreement-2014.pdf

Appendices

Appe

ndix1:Progresstow

ardsth

eEFAgoals

Appe

ndix2:Policy

and

Qualityrelatedcriticalque

stions

Appe

ndix3:Schoo

lstagesa

ndcu

rricu

lara

reas

Appe

ndix4:Schoo

lMon

itorin

gForm

atShe

et

108

Appendix1:ProgresstowardstheEFA

goals

31The

ICDS

sche

meison

eofth

eworld’slargestp

rogram

mefore

arlych

ildho

oddevelop

men

t.Th

emainprog

rammaticinterven

tionsinclud

e:

provision

ofsup

plem

entarynutritionforc

hildren(6m

onths–

5+years)and

lactatingmothe

rs;p

re-schoo

ledu

catio

n,im

mun

izatio

nan

dhe

alth

check-up

facilityforc

hildand

expectantm

othe

rs(N

UEPA

,201

4:13).

GOAL-1

(NUE

PA,

2014

:13).

Early

childho

odca

re

anded

ucation(ECC

E)

istakencareofin

Indiathroug

hthe

Integrated

Child

Developm

entS

chem

e(IC

DS)schem

efor

childrenbe

tweensix

mon

thstofiveyears

ofage(p

.13).

• Nu

mbe

rofp

rojectsu

nderth

eICDS

31sc

hemes

haveincreasedfrom

4,068

to7,025

(app

roximately73

%)b

etwee

n20

01-200

2an

d20

12-13(p.13).

•

The

Ang

anwad

iCen

tres(A

WCs)sup

porting

early

childho

odca

reand

edu

catio

n(ECC

E),for

childrenaged

3-5,increased

by14

5%betwee

n20

01-200

2an

d20

12-13.(p

.14)

•

Pre-scho

oledu

catio

n,ch

ildrenofage3-5+

years,increased11

2%betwee

n20

01-02an

d20

12-13(p.14).

•

ECCE

service

provide

dbyfo

rmalsc

hools,NG

Os

andprivateprovidersh

avefurthe

rincreased

thepe

rcen

tageinpre-prim

aryen

rolm

ent.

•

Theen

rolm

entinpre-prim

aryed

ucation

increasedthreetim

esfrom

13.87

millionin

1999

-200

0to41.3millionin201

0-11(Refer

Figu

re2.1.5:1

7)

• Sign

ificantissueofqua

lityarise

sdue

tolackofa

regu

latorysy

stem

ince

rtainStatesfo

rprovisio

nofper-prim

aryed

ucationremainsanarea

requ

iring

futureinterven

tion,particularlyfo

rruraland

tribalareas(A

mbe

dkarUniversity

,De

lhi,20

13,inp.17

).

•

Alargenu

mbe

rofchildrenstillre

main

unen

rolledinanyofthe

pre-prim

aryfacilities

(app

roximately14

%).(p.17)

•

Furthe

rmore,universalprovisio

nofearly

childho

odca

reand

edu

catio

nremainsaniss

ue

forInd

ia(p

.18).

109

GOAL-2:

(UNE

PA,

2014

:20)

Universalisationof

elem

entaryedu

catio

n(UEE)b

yad

dressin

gun

iversalaccessa

nd

enrolm

ent,un

iversal

retention,brid

ging

gend

ergap

sand

makingprovision

for

prim

aryan

dup

per-

prim

aryed

ucationof

satisfactoryqu

ality

.

• Anincreaseinth

enu

mbe

rofschoo

lsim

parting

elem

entaryedu

catio

nby71.4%

between20

00-

01and

201

3-14

wasobserved(Figure2.2.1:22).

Thisprog

ress,inturn,accou

nted

forincreasein

universalaccess.

• En

rolm

entforelemen

taryedu

catio

n(ClassesI-

VIII)sh

owed

ano

maly.Betwee

n20

00-01an

d20

12-13an

increaseinenrolmen

twasobserved

(from

156

.6m

illionto199

.1m

illion),w

hich

then

followed

adeclinein201

3-14

to198

.9

million(Tab

le2.2.2:2

3).Thisresulteddu

eto

thede

clineinth

echildpop

ulationagegrou

pof

0-6years(NU

EPA,201

4:24).

•

TheGrossE

nrolmen

tRatio(G

ER)for

elem

entaryedu

catio

nrepo

rtsa

nincreasefrom

81

.6%in200

0-01

to97%

in201

3-20

14(T

able

2.2.3:26).

•

Thedrop

outratefore

lemen

taryedu

catio

n(ClassI-VIII)declined

from

53.7%

to42.3%

be

twee

n20

00-01an

d20

08-09(Figure2.2.25

:46

).

•

Anincreaseinth

enu

mbe

rofu

pper-prim

ary

scho

olsresultedinanim

proved

tran

sitionrate

from

81.1%

in200

7-08

to86.7%

in201

2-13

(ReferFigure2.2.28

:48).

• Th

enu

mbe

rofo

ut-of-s

choo

lchildren(OoSC)in

theagegrou

pof6-14ha

sdeclined

steadily

from

6.94%

in200

5-06

to4.28%

in200

9-10

(p.

44).

•

Thedrop

outratewas24.9%

inprim

ary

educationin200

8-09

and

hen

cere

mainsa

majorch

alleng

e(Figure2.2.24

:46).

110

GOAL-3:

Facilitating

developm

ento

f“you

ngpeo

plean

dad

ultsth

roug

heq

uitableaccessto

ap

prop

riatelearning

an

dlifeskills

prog

rammes”

(UNE

SCOb,201

5:51).

•

Thesuccesso

fSSA

inachieving

substantial

prog

ressto

wardsUEEbroug

htinitsw

akethe

challeng

eofassistingph

ysicalm

obilityof

stud

entsfrom

elemen

taryto

second

aryan

dhigh

erse

cond

aryed

ucation.Hen

ce,sub

stan

tial

increaseinenrolmen

tresulted(from

27.6

millionto59.6million)(N

UEPA

,201

4,Tab

le

2.3.1:53).

•

Theyouthliteracyrate(1

5-24

years)improved

substantiallyfrom

76.43

%in200

1to86.14

%in

2011

(NUE

PA,201

4,Figure2.3.3:61).

•

The

UNE

SCOdatarepo

rtfo

r201

5statesth

at

theyouthliteracyratefo

rInd

iais89.65

%(R

efer

UNESCO

web

site).

However,d

espiteco

nsiderab

leincreasewideregion

al

diffe

rentialsinyou

thliteracyra

tere

main(NUE

PA,201

4:

61).

GOAL-4:

Aimsa

tachieving

a

50%increaseinth

elevelsofadu

lted

ucationbyth

eyear

2015

whilebrid

ging

gend

erdisp

arity

Italso

aimsa

tfacilitatin

geq

uitableaccessto

ba

sicand

continuing

ed

ucationfora

llad

ults(U

NESCOb,

2015

:2).

•

Thead

ultlite

racy(a

ge15yearsa

ndabo

ve)h

as

increasedconsiderab

lyfrom

69.3%

in201

1to

72.13%

in201

5(NUE

PA,201

4:68)

•

Neverthe

less,gen

dera

ndre

gion

aldisp

arities

continue

stope

rsist.

111

GOAL-5:

(UNE

SCO,

2015

:2)

Bridging

“gen

der

disparitiesinprim

ary

andsecond

ary

educationby200

5,

andachievinggend

er

equa

lityinedu

catio

nby201

5”(U

NESCOb,

2015

:2).

• Substantialprogressh

asbee

nmad

etowards

gend

erparity

inelemen

taryand

second

ary

educationbe

tween20

00-01an

d20

13-14.For

instan

ce,the

enrolmen

tofg

irlsinelem

entary

educationincreasedfrom

43%

to48.3%

be

twee

n20

00-01an

d20

13-14(Tab

le2.5.1:7

3).

• Amarkeddiffe

rencepe

rsistsa

tthe

second

ary

stagewhe

reth

een

rolm

entforgirlss

tillrem

ains

at47.1%

in-spiteofa

nincreasefrom

38.3%

in

2000

-01to201

3-14

NUE

PA,201

4:73).

GOAL-6:

(UNE

SCO,

2015

:3)

Ensurin

gph

ysica

laccessand

equ

ity

whileim

provingall

aspe

ctso

fqua

lityof

education“sothat

recogn

izablean

dmeasurablelearning

ou

tcom

esare

achieved

byall,

espe

ciallyinliteracy,

numeracyan

dessentiallife

skills”

(UNE

SCO,201

5:3).

• “Improvem

entsinth

equ

ality

ofe

ducatio

nha

ve

been

limite

d,insp

iteofvariouseffo

rts.For

instan

ce,the

Nationa

lAchievemen

tSurvey

(NAS

)forClass-V201

2,havehigh

lighted

slow

prog

ressto

wardsbetterlearningou

tcom

esin

term

soflite

racyand

num

eracyskills”

(UNE

SCOb,201

5:3).

(Refer:N

UEPA,2014andUNESCO,2015)

112

Appendix2:PolicyandQualityrelatedcriticalq

uestions

Crucialguidingque

stionsoutlined

below

arere

levantto

thecurren

tstudy.The

yassisted

with

cond

uctin

gare

view

ofp

olicy

docum

ents

relevantto

edu

catio

nandde

signingofthe

curriculum

policy

docum

entinthedataanalysisphase.W

hilefe

wofthe

que

stionswere

adaptedfro

mth

e2013

-UNE

SCOQualityM

onito

ringhand

book,othersh

avebe

enfo

rmulated

fora

nsweringcrucialque

stionsre

levant

fora

nalysin

gachievem

ento

fqualityed

ucation.

A.Crucialque

stionsre

levantto

thepolicyanalysisframeworkhavebe

enoutlined

below

:

• Inwhatw

ayareth

eed

ucationpo

licies(NP

E19

86/92)and

plann

ingprogrammes(SSA

)con

sistentwith

theaspiratio

nsofo

verall

educationald

evelop

men

t?Arethe

yachievable(be

ingconsisten

twith

exis

tingcapacity,hum

anresou

rces,structuresand

finance)?(U

NESCO,2013:25)

• To

whatd

egreearetheexistinglegisla

tion(RTEAct2009),p

olicies(N

PE198

6/92

)and

plann

ingprogrammes(S

SA)con

sistent

with

eachothe

r?Towhate

xten

thavethepo

licydo

cumen

tsreviewed

policy

textsbe

enbased

oninform

ationandresearch

eviden

ce?(UNE

SCO,2013:25)

• “D

oesthe

policy

strategyand

planprovideford

evelop

men

tacrossd

ifferen

tedu

catio

nsectors?Areth

ereanyn

eglected

orn

on-

prioritize

dareaso

raspectsth

atm

ayemergeasp

oten

tialproblem

sorb

ottle

necks?”(UN

ESCO

,2013:25)

• Ha

veth

evario

usactorsa

ndstakeh

olde

rsinedu

catio

npo

licym

akinga

ndplann

ingb

eenfairlyrep

resented

?Havetheseprocesses

been

participatoryandconsultativ

e?Havetheyallowed

allrelevantstakeh

olde

rsto

voiceth

eirc

oncerns?(U

NESCO,201

3:25-

26)

113

B.Crucialque

stionsre

levantfo

rcritica

llyanalysin

gcurriculumpolicydocumentreform

havebe

enoutlined

below

:

• “H

asth

erebe

enare

centre

view

ofthe

nationalcurriculum

policy

docum

ent”?Ifyes,w

hatchangesweremadedu

ringthe

review

process?(UN

ESCO

,2013:31)

• “H

owisth

enatio

nalcurriculum

policy

docum

entd

evelop

ed,u

pdated

and

rene

wed

?An

d,how

isth

econten

tofthe

curricular

decid

ed?Do

esth

ecurricu

lumdevelop

men

tprocessinvolveallrelevantstakeho

lders?”(UN

ESCO

,2013:31)

• “D

oesthe

curricu

lumalloweno

ughfle

xibilityto

incorporatelocalcon

tentatth

esub-natio

nalorschoo

llevels,to

meetthe

diverse

learningneedsoflearners[particu

larly

atthe

prim

arylevel]?”(UN

ESCO

,201

3:31,m

yparenthe

ses)

• “Areth

ereprovision

sforbilingualorm

ultilingualedu

catio

natth

eprim

arylevel?”“D

otheteachingan

dlearningmaterials(TLM

s)

refle

ctth

e[prim

ary]cu

rricu

lum?Ho

wfreq

uentlyarecu

rricu

larm

aterialsreview

edand

upd

ated

?“(UN

ESCO

,201

3:32)

• “W

hatteaching-learningm

etho

dsarem

ostc

ommon

lyusedatth

eprim

arylevel?Rotelearning?Co

mpe

tency-based?In

what

waysd

otheyhinde

rorfacilitatestud

entlearning?Arete

ache

rsprope

rlytraine

dinusin

gparticipatoryand

interactiveteaching

metho

ds[p

articularlyfo

rprim

arychildren]?”(U

NESCO,201

3:32,m

yparenthe

ses)

C.C

ertaincrucialque

stions,relatingtodemographic,social,economicandpoliticalcontexthavebe

enoutlined

below

:

• “H

owdoe

sInd

ia’sexistinged

ucationcurricu

lumpolicy

(NCF-2005)ta

keintoaccou

ntth

ecoun

try’sd

emograph

ic(sexand

age),

socio

-econo

mic,ethnic,religiousand

linguisticcharacteristicsofth

epo

pulatio

n?”(UNE

SCO,2013:13).H

owdoe

sthesocia

l,

econ

omicandpo

litica

lfactorp

layup

againsteffe

ctiveim

plem

entatio

nofth

eNC

F-2005?

• Whatk

indofpoliticaland

governm

entalinstitutionalframew

orkexistsinIn

dia?How

stableisthefunctio

ningofthe

political

system

?An

dlastly,w

hatimplica

tionsdoe

sthe

politicalsystemhaveon

theed

ucationpo

licyprocess?(U

NESCO,2013:15)

114

D.Crucialguidingque

stionsre

latedtolearningachievementsiden

tifiedare:

• Ho

wisthestud

entlearningachievemen

tmon

itoredforprim

arystud

entinInd

ia?“D

oesthecoun

tryorganizenational

assessmen

tsoflearningachievem

ent[atth

eprim

arylevel]?”(p.32,m

yparenthe

ses)

• “Istherecontinuo

usm

onito

ringofstude

ntle

arning?Whatisthebalancebe

tweenform

ativeandsummativeevaluatio

nsof

stud

entlearning?”(p.32)

• “D

ostud

entsfrom

anyparticularpop

ulationgrou

p(s)und

er-perform

inexaminations?”(p

.32).Isthe

rere

gularm

easuremen

tof

perfo

rmanceindicators?Forstude

ntsa

ndsc

hools?(p

.32)

(U

NESCO,201

3)

E.Over-archingquestionsonpolicyandqualitywithrespecttocurriculumreform

inIndia:

1.Crucia

lque

stionsapp

lyingPolicylens:

• Inwhatw

ayhasth

eNC

F-2005triedtoadd

ressso

cialand

cultu

ralissue

sand

needs,particularlyatthe

prim

arylevel?

• Arethemeasureso

fqualityinNC

F-2005ac

tuallymeasurin

gwhath

asbeenagreed

upo

ninth

ede

finition

ofqualitya

tthe

national

andinternationallevels?Areth

eresomeproxymeasures?

• Ho

wdoe

sthe

NCF-2005addressp

rovisio

nofqualityed

ucation?Ord

oesitsub

stitu

tequalityinte

rmso

find

icators?

• To

whate

xten

tdoe

sthenatio

nalcurriculum

policy

docum

entintegratecom

mitm

entsto

achieveth

esix

thgoalo

fEFA

goal?

Whatm

easuresh

avebe

enputinplacefo

rsuccessfullyachievingth

em?

• Ha

veade

quateresourcesb

eenmob

ilized?W

hata

reth

egapsorspacesstillrem

aining?An

d,how

areth

eybeingadd

ressed

?

• Whata

reth

eremaininginconsisten

ciesa

tthe

prim

arylevel,particularlyinte

rmso

fpolicy

goalsandim

plem

entatio

nstrategies?

• To

whate

xten

thasth

eNC

F-2005beende

signe

dbasedon

researchevide

nce?

• Inwhatw

ayhavenatio

nalexamsa

ndfind

ingsbeenused

toinform

orshape

policiesan

d/orto

improvelearninginpu

ts,processes

115

andachievem

ent,particu

larly

atthe

prim

arylevel?

2.Crucia

lque

stionsapp

lyingQualitylens:

• Isevaluatio

nthecornerston

esonwhichqualityed

ucationatth

eprim

arylevelisa

ddressed

?

• Whatisthe

levelofp

articipationofth

emarginalized

pop

ulationgrou

psatthe

prim

aryed

ucationlevel?W

hato

bstacle

sdo

theyfaceinte

rmso

faccesstoed

ucation?

• Do

esinternationaltestin

gde

term

inewhatg

oesintothecurricu

lumatthe

prim

arylevel?

• Ha

vedifferen

tped

agogicpracticesbeenconsidered

asc

entralcrucialind

icatorsfo

rprovisio

nofqualityed

ucation?

• Do

este

ache

rtraining,te

achingand

learningm

easures,andnatio

nalassessm

entsurveysplayacrucialroleinhow

curriculum

reform

isadd

ressed

inIndia?

• Whatsystemicsupp

ortb

eenpu

tintoplacefora

chievingqualityed

ucation?W

hatcen

tralro

ledotheyplayinfu

rthe

rbolstering

quality

edu

catio

n?

F.IssueswithrespecttotheQualityM

onitoringTools(QMTs)wereaddressedthroughtheguidingquestionsoutlinedbelow:

• Whatfeatureshavebe

enin

corporated

inQMTsin

relationtoprovisio

nofqualityprim

aryed

ucation?Havecrucialfeatures

directlyre

spon

siblefo

rqualityed

ucationbe

enadd

ressed

?

• “Areth

especificindicatorsbywhicheachgene

ralfeatureiselabo

ratedandop

erationalized

app

ropriate?”(Alexande

r,2008:

14)

• Ho

wcon

sistentlyarethe

indicatorsgoingtobe

interpretedbythe

irusersforallowingmon

itorin

gpu

rposetobeprop

erly

served

?

116

• Whatmotivated

the

con

ceptualand/orempiricalbasis

forthevario

usdim

ensio

ns,featuresand

ind

icatorsw

ithinQ

MT,

particu

larly

with

respecttoqu

ality

prim

aryed

ucation?Canth

esedimen

sions,featuresa

nd/orind

icatorsbejustified

?

• “Isthe

QMTproced

ure-involvingasitdoe

sfou

rteenmon

itorin

gform

atsa

ndth

reeanalytica

lshe

etsa

tfivelevelsfro

mstateto

scho

oluptofo

urtimeseachyear-m

anageable?”(Alexande

r,2008:14)

117

Appendix3:Schoolstagesandcurricularareas

Subjects

Broadguiding

aim

sforeach

subject

LevelsofEducation

Primarylevel

(Grade-I-V)

Upper-primary

level

(Grades-V-VIII)

Secondaryeducation

(Grades-VIII-X)

Highereducation

(Grades-XI-XII)

LANGUAGE

(core

subject)

-Lan

guageskills,suchas,speech,listening,readingandwritingshou

ldcu

tacrosso

thersu

bjectsand

disc

iplines(p

.40).Thisa

ffects

successa

tschoo

l.-“Th

reelang

uagefo

rmula”,(referringtosp

read

ofm

ultilingu

alism

),shou

ldbeim

plem

entedinsc

hools(NC

F20

05:3

7).

Thisc

omprise

softhechild’shomelangu

age(s)ormothertongu

e(s),whichNCF-2005arguesshou

ld

be

themed

iumoflearninginsc

hools(p.37

).-English,asasecond-langu

age,n

eedsto

find

sitsplacealong

with

otherIn

dian

lang

uages.

-Eng

lishshou

ldcu

tacrossthe

curriculum

atthe

prim

aryed

ucationlevel.

-The

multilingu

alch

aractero

fInd

iansocie

tysh

ouldbeseen

asa

resourcefo

rthe

enrich

men

tofschoo

llife

.-Include

Braillean

dSign

lang

uagefo

rlearnersw

ithou

tdisa

bility(p.38).The

teaching

app

roachshou

ldbemutua

lly

supp

ortiv

e“w

ithinabroad

cogn

itivephilosoph

y(in

corporatingVy

gotsky,C

homskyanan

dPiagetianprincip

les)”

(NCF200

5:39).

-Atthe

primarylevelchildrenshou

ldbetaug

htinhom

elang

uage(s)tho

sebelon

ging

tolingu

istminoritygroups.

-To

inculca

tehon

oura

ndre

spectforhom

elang

uage(s),pa

rticularlyamon

gstteachers.

-TheHome/First/M

othertongu

em

ustbeacceptedastheyas(p.38).Duringthisprocesso

flearningifm

istakes

arem

adechildrenwillcorrectthemselves(p.38

).

-Teachingan

dlearning

mathe

maticss

hould

involve

“mathematisation”

-Curric

ulum

shou

ldfa

cilita

te

makinga

conn

ectio

nbe

twee

n

-App

licationof

powerful

concep

tsin

continua

tion

-Mathe

maticstreated

asa

discipline

-Stude

nts’be

comefamiliarwith

de

finingterm

sand

concep

ts,

-App

recia

teapp

licationof

mathe

maticalco

ncep

ts

-Favou

ringan

increaseinth

ebreadthratherthanthedepthof

118

MATHEMA-

TICS

(core

subject)

(logicalthinking,

hand

lingab

stract

thinking

)rathe

rtha

nim

parting

“kno

wledg

e’of

mathe

maticsina

form

aland

mecha

nicalm

anne

r(NCF200

5:42).

-Learning

mathe

maticss

hould

enha

ncelearne

r’s

abilityto

thinkan

dreason

,tovisualise

an

dha

ndle

abstractions,to

form

ulatean

dsolve

prob

lems.

-Ita

dvocatesfo

rthe

curriculum

tobe

ambitio

us

(develop

ingcritical

thinking

)and

cohe

rent(skillsand

metho

dsth

atco

here

with

othersu

bjects).

mathe

matics

andeveryday

thinking

(p.44)

-Gam

es,

storiesa

nd

puzzlestohe

lp

developthe

above.

-“Mathe

matics

isno

tarith

metic”

(NCF200

5:45)

-The

curricu

lum

shou

ldbe

explicitin

incorporating

theprog

ression

from

the

concreteto

the

abstractalong

with

concep

tlearning

(p.45).

with

previou

sly

learntco

ncep

ts.

-Revisitin

gconcep

tsand

skillslearnta

ttheprim

ary

stages

-Cu

rriculum

includ

es

algebraic

notio

n,sh

apes

andDa

ta

hand

ling(p.45)

-Enrich

stud

ents’

spatial

reason

ingan

dvisualisa

tion

skills(p.45

).

usageofsy

mbo

lsan

dprecise

ly

stated

and

proofsjustifying

prop

osition

-G

eometryand

Algeb

racr

ucial

bitsofthe

mathe

matics

curriculum

(p.45).

-Develop

problem

-solving

ability

throug

hprevioussk

illslearnt.

-Ind

ividua

land

group

exploratio

nan

dvisuallearning

.

coverageofcontentsdue

toth

ewide

applicationofth

esubject(p.45

) -T

heto

picsco

veredshouldarouse

interestandcuriosity(p

.45).

119

-Ita

dvocatesth

at

mathe

matics

teaching

mustb

eactivity-oriented.

SC

IENCE

(core

subject)

-Con

tent,p

rocess

lang

uageand

pe

dago

gical

practicesofscien

ce

teaching

mustbe

commensuratewith

thelearne

r’sage-

rang

ean

dcogn

itive

reach(p.46-47

). -Scien

tificte

aching

shou

ldnurture

child’scurio

sityan

dcreativ

ity,

particularlywith

respecttothe

environm

ent.

-Teachingshou

ldbe

placed

inth

ewider

contextofthe

children’s

environmentfor

facilitatinggaining

know

ledg

ean

dskills

-Eng

aging

learne

rsin

acqu

iring

metho

dsand

processesfor

prom

oting

“joyfully”

explorationan

dha

rmon

isatio

nwith

theworld.

(p.48)

-Noform

al

perio

dictests,

noawarding

of

marksor

grad

es,and

no

detention

shou

ldbe

awarde

dto

learne

rs

throug

hout

prim

arystage

(p.48).

-Anim

portan

tcompo

nentof

peda

gogy

shou

ldentail

“group

activ

ities,

discussio

nswith

pe

ersa

nd

teache

rs,

surveys,

organizatio

nof

dataand

their

displaythroug

hexhibitio

n”

(p.48)

-The

curriculum

shou

ldnotbea

“diluted

version”of

second

ary

scho

olsc

ience

curriculum

(p.48).

-Eng

agewith

learning

scienceas

acompo

sitelearning

. -P

edagog

icpracticeshou

ld

involveexpe

rimen

tatio

nwhich

conn

ectsth

eoreticalprin

ciples

with

thelocalcon

text.

-Emph

asison

experim

ents,

techno

logyand

problem

solving.

-Sciencesubjectintrodu

cedasa

sepa

ratedisc

ipline.

-Rationa

lisationofth

ecurriculum

for

avoiding

stee

pgrad

ientbetwee

nsecond

aryan

dhigh

er-secon

dary

syllabi.(p.49

) -T

eacherss

houldincorporatecurren

tad

vancesinth

efie

ldintoth

eir

teaching

-Avoidco

verin

galargenu

mbe

rof

topicssu

perficially

120

fore

asytran

sitionto

theworldofw

ork.

-The

entire

science

scho

olcu

rricu

lum

shou

ldintegrate

environm

ental

stud

iesa

long

with

essentialhealth

compo

nents.(p.48)

-The

science

curriculum

shou

ldhelp

developba

sic

lang

uagesk

ills:

speaking

,read

ingan

dwriting.(p

.48)

-Con

tinuo

us,

andpe

riodic

assessmen

t(unittests,

term

-end

stests).

-Node

tention

forstude

nts.

-Everych

ild

who

attends

eightyearsof

schoolssh

ould

bepromoted

to

Grad

e-IX(p

.48)

121

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

(core

subject)

-The

curricu

lum

shou

ldco

ntaina

know

ledg

eba

seth

at

prom

otesa"justa

nd

peacefulso

ciety"

(p.50).

-Socialscien

ce

conten

tsho

uldfocus

ondevelop

ing

inde

pend

enta

nd

critical

unde

rstand

ingof

econ

omic,p

olitical

andsocietalissues.

-Deviatefrom

mem

oriza

tionof

inform

ationfor

exam

inationto

concep

tual

unde

rstand

ing.

-Creatingjob

oppo

rtun

itiesby

developing

skillso

fcreativ

ityand

an

alysisthroug

hthe

socia

lscie

nce

curriculum

.

-Naturaland

socia

lscie

nce

areintegrated

alon

gside

physical,

biolog

ical,

socia

land

cultu

ral

sphe

res.

-Illustrativ

e,

discussio

n-oriented

and

pa

rticipative

metho

ds

shou

ldbeused

du

ring

teaching

. -T

helang

uage

used

shou

ldbe

gend

er

sensitive.

-ForGrade

sIII

toVanew

subjectcalled

Environm

ental

Science(EVS

)forb

uilding

-Con

tain

conten

tsfrom

History,

Geog

raph

y,

politicalsc

ience

andecon

omics.

-Deepe

run

derstand

ing

ofth

esocial

andecon

omic

challeng

es,

suchas,

poverty,ch

ild-

labo

ur,

illite

racy,and

vario

us

dimen

sionsof

ineq

uality.

-Con

tent

shou

ldbemad

etore

lateto

lean

er's

everydaylife

(p.53).

-History

conten

tsho

uld

assis

tinthe

learne

rgettin

g

-SocialScien

ceco

ntainconten

tfrom

History,Geo

grap

hy,p

olitical

science,so

ciologyand

psycho

logy.

-Com

merceinclud

esbusiness

stud

iesa

ndaccou

ntan

cy.

-Learner'sofferedchoiceof

subjectsdep

ending

who

wan

tsto

continue

with

form

aledu

catio

noroptfo

rvocationa

ledu

catio

n.

Thischoiceisalso

mad

eavailable

depe

nden

tonthelearne

r’s

interest,

-Con

tentinclusiveofkno

wledg

ean

dne

cessaryskillsn

eede

dby

respectiv

estud

ents.

-SocialScien

ceco

ntainconten

tfrom

History,Geo

grap

hy,p

oliticalscien

ce,

socio

logyand

psycholog

y.

-Com

merceinclud

esbusinesss

tudies

andaccoun

tancy.

-Learner'sofferedchoiceofsub

jects

depe

ndingwho

wan

tsto

continue

with

form

aledu

catio

noroptfo

rvocatio

naledu

catio

n.Thisc

hoiceis

alsom

adeavailablede

pend

ento

nthelearne

r’sinterest.

-Con

tentinclusiveofkno

wledg

ean

dne

cessaryskillsn

eede

dbyre

spectiv

estud

ents.

122

-The

curricu

lum

shou

ldbe

incorporaterelevant

localcon

tentinth

eteaching-le

arning

process(p.50

).

-Interdisciplinary

approa

ches

whe

reverp

ossib

le,

prom

otingkey

natio

nalcon

cerns,

suchas,gend

er(w

ith

respecttowom

en),

justice,hum

an

rights,an

dsensitivity

tom

argina

lised

grou

psand

minoritiessh

ouldbe

facilitated

(p.51).

-Civicss

houldbe

recastasp

olitical

science.Also

,the

sig

nifican

ceof

historyasash

aping

influ

enceonthe

children’s

concep

tionofth

e

consciou

sness

abou

tthe

en

vironm

ent.

-"Co

nten

tto

refle

ctday-to

-da

yexpe

riencesof

childrenan

dtheirlife

world"

(p.52)-C

ontain

conten

tsfrom

History,

Geog

raph

y,

politicalsc

ience

andecon

omics.

-Historywill

emph

asise

the

concep

tof

plurality

.Also

,form

ationan

dfunctio

ning

of

governmen

tsat

thelocaland

glob

allevelw

ill

beintrod

uced

toth

elearne

r.

an

unde

rstand

ing

ofth

eric

han

dvarie

dpa

st

therefore,

enab

lingthem

tobetter

unde

rstand

theirw

orld.

-Develop

an

alyticaland

concep

tual

skillsw

ith

exam

plesfrom

mod

ernan

dcontem

porary

Indiaan

dothe

rpa

rtso

fthe

world.

-Develop

anin-

depth

unde

rstand

ing

ofth

eIndian

Co

nstitution,

suchas,the

rightsa

nd

respon

sibilitie

sofcitizen

sina

123

pastand

civic

iden

tityshou

ldbe

recogn

ised(p.51).

-Throu

gh

Geog

raph

yan

dPo

litica

lscie

nce

stud

entswillbe

introd

uced

to

issue

srelated

to

environm

ent,

resourcesa

nd

developm

enta

tdiffe

rentlevels,

local,state,and

centrallevels.

-Econo

mics

will

enab

lestud

ents

toobserve

econ

omic

institu

tionslike

themarketa

nd

thestate(p.53)

democraticand

secularsociety

(p.53).

124

COMPUTER

SCIENCE

-NCF-200

5recogn

isestha

tthe

integrationofIn

form

ationTechno

logy(IT)cu

rriculum

intosc

hoolsisv

ital.

-Advocatesfo

rteachers,curricu

lumdevelop

ers,ed

ucatorsa

ndevaluatorstoha

rnessthe

poten

tialofincorpo

ratin

gan

dutilisin

gthe

full-po

tentialofICT

forb

enefiting

thelearne

r.(NCF200

5:45-46

)

ART

EDUCATION

(core

subject)

-Artse

ducatio

ncomprise

sofa

“folk

andclassic

alfo

rms

ofm

usicand

dan

ce,

theatre,pup

petry,

daywork,visu

alarts

andcraftsfrom

diffe

rentre

gion

sof

India”(N

CF200

5:

55).Th

eseshou

ldbe

anim

portan

tparto

flearning

inth

ecurriculum

.

-The

artsc

urric

ulum

shou

ldpromote

“aestheticqu

ality

an

dexpe

rience”

(p.56).

-The

app

roachto

learning

artss

hould

beparticipatory,

interactivean

dexpe

rientialrathe

r

-Music,d

anceand

art,atthe

prim

aryan

dpre-prim

arylevel,

contrib

utetoth

ede

velopm

ento

f“self,bo

thco

gnitiveand

socia

l”(p.56).

-Artsfacilitateslearningof

“lang

uage,exploratio

nofnature

andun

derstand

ingofth

eself”in

children(p.56).

-Blockperiodsofa

pproximately

onean

daha

lfho

urto

be

allocatedfora

rtfo

rthe

atre,

dance,and

claywork.

-Facilitatess

pecializing

inso

meareaso

fthe

irinterest.

-The

oryofartand

aesthetics

introd

uced

,fordeepe

ning

app

recia

tionan

dsig

nifican

ceofthisa

reaofkno

wledg

e,atthislevel.

-The

+2stageprom

otessp

ecialized

artse

ducatio

n,whe

restud

entswho

wish

topursueacareerinth

at,can

doso.

125

than

instructive

(p.55).

-Allfourstream

sof

art-m

usic,d

ance,

visualartsa

nd

theatre-“s

hould”be

anintegralparto

fthescho

ol

curriculum

(upto

Grad

e-X).Itsho

uld

alsobeasubjecta

teverystage.

HEALTHAND

PHYSICAL

EDUCATION

(core

subject)

“Health

isinflu

enced

bybiological,social,

econ

omic,cultural

andpo

liticalfa

ctors”

(p.56)Hen

ce,

throug

hhe

althand

ph

ysicaledu

catio

n(in

clud

ingyoga)

issue

s,suchas,

enrolm

ent,

retention,and

scho

olco

mpletion

ratess

ignifican

tly

canbe

effe

ctively

addressed.

-Com

pulso

ryatthe

prim

aryan

dup

per-prim

arystage.

-Yog

aintrod

uced

ininform

always

upto

Grade

-III.Itisintrod

uced

as

form

aledu

catio

nfrom

Grade

-IV.

-Com

pulso

ryatthe

second

arystage

-Optiona

latthe

highe

r-second

arystage.

126

-Und

er-nou

rishm

ent

andcommun

icab

le

diseasessh

ouldbe

addressedfrom

pre-

prim

arytoth

ehigh

er-secon

dary

stageswith

pa

rticularatten

tion

toso

cialgroup

sand

girlchildren.

-Nosla

shingoftime

insc

hoolsforyog

aan

dgames(corepa

rt

ofcu

rriculum

)(p.57

). -A

ge-app

ropriate

context-s

pecific

interven

tions

focusedon

ad

olescent

reprod

uctiv

ean

dsexualhealth

concerns,including

HIV/AIDS

and

drug

/sub

stan

ce

abuse,th

erefore,are

need

edto

provide

children

oppo

rtun

itiesto

127

constructk

nowledg

ean

dacqu

irelife-

skills,forc

opingwith

processeso

fgrowing

up”(p.57

).

EDUCA-

TIONFOR

PEACE

-Edu

catio

nforp

eacese

ekstoinculca

te,value

s,attitud

esand

skillsforadd

ressingeq

ualityan

dsocia

ljustice,particularly,forth

epo

or

andtheun

derpriv

ileged.

-Peace-orie

nted

value

ssho

uldbe

promoted

throug

hrelevantactivitiesinallsubjectsth

roug

houtth

escho

olyears(p

.62).

-Peaceedu

catio

nshou

ldm

akethelearne

rsnotonlype

aceconsum

ersb

utalso

peacem

akers(p.62

).-P

eaceedu

catio

nshou

ldfo

rmaco

mpo

nentofteacheredu

catio

n.

HABITAT

AND

LEARNING

Environm

entaledu

catio

nmaybebe

stpursued

byinfusin

gtheiss

uesa

ndco

ncernsofthe

enviro

nmen

tintotheteaching

ofd

ifferen

tdisciplinesata

lllevelswhileensuringthatade

quatetim

eisearm

arkedforp

ertin

enta

ctivities.

(Refer:N

CF2005,30-70)

Appendix4:SchoolMonitoringFormatSheetundertheQualityMonitoringTool

129

&,,-. Oirit - .:oJ

r I!"

1 ..

r, ... ·, .

ViD

VT1J

j.~

• I

A ·ah ... 1':DDWII• f'ift Qi,t, -, .....

•

l

' ... ~- ~ ... %6 ... a-. ~->

( ¥.>

D D D

-= ..

130

131

132

s.

m

- ·pit;

(a,

.. '

133

19

rr, in

:} tr

lllndlq,zz:1.

!

pqa:uU

'

I Y• • I I VIII I

I 1c 1

134

,N

... -...... .. I - 1"" 1411• flilllO

. - - Wna --:,-a ·- to. • •

A I .It

. t: ..,.. ~ ,., lt( l

A

E. 'l~E -•. .ti . -+

niw i1'6 A .rt .w C

l* HU

1l

Ill , . ..

•••t

135

(NCERT,2015:1-8)