Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen]On: 25 November 2014, At: 03:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20
Rediscovering the teacher withinIndian child-centred pedagogy:implications for the global Child-Centred ApproachAmy Smailaa Faculty of Policy and Society, Institute of Education, Universityof London, London, UKPublished online: 01 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: Amy Smail (2014) Rediscovering the teacher within Indian child-centredpedagogy: implications for the global Child-Centred Approach , Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International Education, 44:4, 613-633, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2013.817225
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.817225
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
Rediscovering the teacher within Indian child-centred pedagogy:implications for the global Child-Centred Approach
Amy Smail*
Faculty of Policy and Society, Institute of Education, University of London,London, UK
The Child-Centred Approach (CCA) is increasingly promoted withinIndia and internationally as a response to the challenge of deliveringquality education. From identifying and examining Indian indigenousand global concepts of CCA within traditional and contemporary child-centred pedagogic discourse, this paper reveals the complexities ofunderlying agendas within the domestic and international setting and theimplications of this for the integration of CCA and the ‘child-centred’teacher in India. Based on empirical analysis of teachers’ interviews, thefindings demonstrate that the role of the teacher continues to be largelyoverlooked in spite of a willingness from teachers to engage within thechild-centred pedagogic discourse. Disempowerment, a lack of autonomyand limited professional status are highlighted. Therefore, this paper callsfor the rediscovery of the ‘child-centred’ teacher to advance from withinthe nation. Without this, it is asserted that the authenticity of the CCAmodel will continue to be compromised, and with it, any indigenousexpressions of a similar epistemology will be fundamentally restricted.
Keywords: child-centred pedagogy; India; elementary education;teacher
1. Introduction
The Child-Centred Approach (CCA) has emerged from internationalagencies as a panacea to the quality issue (UNESCO 1990, 2000; UNICEF2009), with benefits ranging from greater child participation and motivationto positive social and economic outcomes. The Government of India(1986a, 1986b, 1992) adopted CCA as a response to the pervasive challengeof delivering quality education and it quickly cemented within ‘officialdiscourse’ to deter teachers from the existing dominant teacher-centricapproach (TCA), characterised by over-reliance on textbooks and rote-learn-ing (Sriprakash 2009, 2010). Influenced by the achievement of UNESCO’s
*Email: [email protected]
© 2013 British Association for International and Comparative Education
Compare, 2014Vol. 44, No. 4, 613–633, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.817225
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
Education for All (EFA) goals and the education-specific UN MillenniumDevelopment Goal (MDG) by 2015, the Government of India has observedthe need for significant reforms in its elementary education system toadvance quality education through the integration of CCA.
A growing number of reports indicate that these governmental changesof pedagogic renewal in India are superficial, however. A common argu-ment, noted by Ramachandran, Bhattacharjea, and Sheshagiri (2008), is‘there has been a great deal of public anger against teachers’ responsible forthe poor levels of educational outcomes due to a lack of motivation and‘inadequate content knowledge and pedagogical skills’ (5). This is said tobe confirmed by the ‘huge and well-documented phenomenon’ of teacherabsenteeism (Narayan and Mooij 2010, 63).
However, studies argue that teachers face many challenges, includinglow salaries, lack of financial incentives and poor infrastructure, that couldarguably account for this (Kremer et al. 2005). It is asserted that failure toimprove these issues for teachers is merely reflective of more profound,underlying problems entrenched within the education system (Batra 2005,2009, 2010). The current limited status of teachers is said to be traceableback to the Colonial era (Kumar 2005), with modern teachers remaininglimited in voice ever since, causing a major systemic gap in educationalreform (Batra 2005). Emerging research also demonstrates the lack of tea-cher participation in constructive engagement (Mehta, Gardia, and Rathore2010), including in child-centred pedagogy (Ramachandran, Bhattacharjea,and Sheshagiri 2008, 5), creating disparity between policy and practice. Thisfrequently isolates teachers from partaking within these ‘spaces’ of engage-ment as they are essentially poorly equipped to navigate and assert theirposition within them.
The empirical research reported on in this article was conducted toanalyse, critique and evaluate the concept and role of the teacher withinchild-centred pedagogy based on two Indian elementary schools. The paperbegins by introducing CCA in a theoretical framework in Section 2 to under-stand its origins within the domestic setting, establish indigenous and globalconcepts and further contextualise it within the current international setting.Current issues concerning the ‘child-centred’ teacher in India are then exam-ined. The research context and approach of this empirical study are outlinedin Section 3, providing background information of the teachers interviewed.Through empirical analysis in Section 4, the teachers’ perceptions of CCA,their role within it and their level of engagement within this pedagogic dis-course are presented. They are then discussed in Section 5, with conclusionsmade in Section 6. This paper places particular interest on any factors gener-ated at the domestic and international levels that have determined this andany implications they may also have created of the integration of CCA. It iscritical to note at this point that whilst the definition of ‘discourse’ has a spe-cific meaning in post-modernist, post-structural theory and feminism as well
614 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
as linguistics, the term will be referred to, for the purpose of this paper, asthe dialogue, debates and developments of multiple educationists’ perspec-tives within the international and domestic platform of policy, research andpractice surrounding child-centred pedagogy.
2. Child-centred pedagogy
Regarded as a philosophy, there are common principles that construct thecore of child-centred pedagogy. It is a ‘curriculum in harmony with thechild’s real interests, needs and learning patterns’ (Kliebard 1995, 24) and isalso generally seen as the polar opposite to the TCA. The ‘purist’ form ofthis philosophy would recognise that it places ‘rational and personal auton-omy as the central aim of education’ (Doddington and Hilton 2007, 82),resulting in education systems valuing the experiences of the individualchild in their specific setting, rather than reducing these experiences becauseof a prescribed curriculum.
2.1. Global and Indian concepts of child-centred pedagogy
It is noted that these theories are by no means unified, and majorpedagogues such as Frobel, Montessori and Dewey differ in their interpreta-tions (Lall 2010). Yet, it could be argued, there is a problematic nature tothe current child-centred discourse since many of these philosophies arecollectively grouped into what is deemed ‘CCA’ and adopted as a universalterm internationally. There is insufficient space to distinguish how CCAbecame conceptualised in this way in the international discourse. Nonethe-less, it could be said the term ‘Child-Centred Approach’ increased inpopularity from the 1980s onwards as it was seen by UN inter-agencies towork in union with the goal to see children’s rights – largely conceptualisedby the UN (1989) Convention of the Rights of the Child – enshrinedinternationally in education sectors. An increasing number of internationalagencies and non-governmental organisations continue to adopt the term tosteer policy and practice, accelerating its implementation globally.
In the case of India, a philosophy, essentially child-centred, can betracked to the pre- and post-Independence era that was conceptualised bykey thinkers, including Gandhi, Aurobindo and Vivekananda. This suggeststhe epistemology underpinning it is by no means new in India. To tease thisout is beyond the scope of this paper, yet it must be noted that the body ofliterature tracking this indigenous concept is limited and, therefore, it mustbe assumed that existing domestic literature alludes to the more universalterm. In light of this, the paper will refer to ‘CCA’ as the more internation-ally recognised theory due to its promotion and growth from internationalagencies from the 1980s onwards. The philosophies conceptualised withinIndia will be referred to as the ‘Indian child-centred tradition’.
Compare 615
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
2.2. The Indian child-centred tradition: a theoretical framework
Since this paper is concerned with the Indian context, major concepts willbe outlined from Tagore, Gandhi, Vivekananda and Aurobindo, whoare arguably some of the key pedagogues contributing to the Indianchild-centred pedagogic discourse (Vittachi, Raghavan, and Raj 2007).
An axiomatic concept sees the child as an individual agent, capable ofinvestigating and bringing differentiated experiences into their classroom(Aggarwal 1999; Mehrotra 2007). For Vivekananda (in Prabhananda 2003),a child ‘has many potentials of variable worth’, thus their existingknowledge should be used as a platform to develop greater autonomy andself-belief through ‘learning’ and ‘discovery’ (236). Furthermore, Aurobindo(in Joshi 2011, n.p.) believed that the child should have freedom to leadlearning through self-reflection and self-evaluation. Ridding children fromtextbooks was seen by Gandhi (in Kumar 1993) as pivotal to achieve thissince it equally restricted the teacher to ‘impart originality to his pupils’ (3).A curriculum example was incorporated within many of these theoriesemphasising the child’s holistic development (Aggarwal 1999).
Perhaps the most critical characteristic seen as central by thesephilosophers was the instrumental role of the teacher. As Aurobindo (inAggarwal 1999) states, the teacher must not act as a ‘task-master andinstructor ... he does not impart knowledge to [the child]; he shows himhow to acquire knowledge for himself. ... He only shows him where it liesand how it can be habituated to rise to the surface’ (217). In other words,the teacher should be a ‘facilitator’. This principle sought to challenge howmuch control the teacher exerted over the child as it could exacerbate thechild’s independence over their learning (Mehrotra 2007). The classroomshould be structured in such a way that free movement supports the learnersto interact according to the different stimuli and with each other, enablingthe teacher to act as an observer (Aggarwal 1999). Fundamentally, theteachers’ worth was highly valued by these philosophers because of theexpertise and skill needed to guide the child appropriately.
2.3. Domestic and international agendas and CCA: a globalisedpedagogy?
It can be observed, therefore, based on sections 2.1 and 2.2, that an Indianchild-centred tradition already existed. However, it must also be acknowl-edged that its growth remained fledgling. Whilst notions of ‘child-centred-ness’ emerged in ‘official’ Indian policy frameworks in the late 1980s (GoI1986a, 1986b, 1992), it was essentially this internationally recognised the-ory of CCA, advocated by multi-lateral agencies in response to achievingthe MDGs and EFA goals, that was adopted and developed within theIndian state system (Thangavelu 2006). On the one hand, it could be saidthat approaches such as Activity-Based Learning founded in India are
616 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
examples of the continuation of the Indian child-centred tradition. This isequally supported by UNICEF (2009), whose mandate of the Child FriendlySchools Programme speaks of contextualisation. Yet this begs questions of,firstly, why was the Indian child-centred tradition largely disregarded by theIndian Government from its initial conception and, secondly, why did theinternational agencies seem to poorly recognise it?
For Carter (2009), the globalised nature of international agencies hasplayed a significant part in the popularity of CCA since education and glob-alisation are fundamentally ‘mutually implicative categories’ (57). Theimplication of this, however, is that CCA has increasingly been conformedinto a ‘universal pedagogy’. This ‘one-size-fits-all’ model is designed forcountries to perform in standardised global tests, delimiting any scope fordifference. A salient study by Courtney and Gravelle (2010), based inCambodia, further argues that CCA has become a reductionist process dueto the underlying neoliberal agenda fuelled by the complex donor/recipientrelationship. It is observed that any projects are written for ‘global’ educa-tors, disregarding the local, indigenous educational context.
For Kumar and Sarangapani (2004), the neoliberal agenda also explainswhy education is, instead, serving as a ‘production-function’ since mostinternational agencies, are, ‘taking advantage of the ascendance of neoliberaleconomics and a populist discourse of market fundamentalism’ (12). Theemerging role of neoliberalism within India is also noted (Mehrotra andParthasarthi 2006). Therefore, it could be said that empowerment is beingredefined in terms of economic development and status, leading to a rede-fined version of CCA and, potentially, a misconstrued pedagogic theorybeing advocated internationally. Furthermore, reducing CCA to a uniformapproach through a neoliberal framework arguably works paradoxically to itsfundamental ideologies since its ‘purist’ form would reject any standardisa-tion. Thus, it could be argued, this creates vast implications for theintegration of the Indian child-centred tradition and CCA, whilst also affect-ing the role of the teacher. It is asserted by Sarangapani (2009) that there iswide recognition in India that the state, ‘share[s] with neoliberals the ideathat the teacher is a technician who needs to be managed efficiently’ (203).Therefore, ‘the notion of the “teacher as a professional” and “pedagogicrelationship” are not central to this conception of education’ (203). It couldfurther be speculated that this form of child-centredness was initially over-looked at the time of the new era of Independence, seen as a hindrance to theadvancement of modernisation for global competition. Could history berepeating itself?
2.4. Contested concepts of the Indian ‘child-centred teacher’
In light of the above discussion, there is a growing discourse in India that isbringing attention toward these contested concepts of the teacher (Batra
Compare 617
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
2005, 2009, 2010). Based on an expanding body of research, prominentissues have emerged focusing on teacher autonomy, professional status andempowerment in India, arguably determining the very concept and effective-ness of a ‘child-centred teacher’. To analyse key issues that inform andshape the current child-centred pedagogic discourse, the discussion will beframed through these specific concepts.
2.4.1. Teacher autonomy
An emerging body of research argues how the Indian system continues to begoverned by outcome-based learning and examinations, resulting in teachersbeing constrained and operationalising CCA without scope to developa needs-led learning environment (Ramachandran, Bhattacharjea, andSheshagiri 2008, 5; Sriprakash 2009). Sriprakash (2009) notes that a disparityexists between ‘the nature of the activities proposed and their terminal objec-tives’ (633) set by the state, creating a restricted framework for teachers towork within. For Kumar (2005), the state perceives that it has the legitimateknowledge and, therefore, ‘there is no room in this [pedagogic] process forgenuine inquiry, for it is assumed that all necessary inquiry has already beenmade; and the results of the inquiry have been packaged in the syllabus andthe textbook’ (94). Arguably, an archetype of ‘teacher’ is created, seen as arecipient to solely deliver the prescribed content.
The implications of this would be profound. By hindering their creativityand experimentation, teachers continue to be dependent on the existingstructures and practice keeping TCA prominent. This could also potentiallyproblematise what teachers understand of autonomy within CCA. Therefore,this would work in contradiction to the fundamental principles of ‘pure’child-centred ideologies as well as the Indian child-centred tradition, whichinstead views that the child will increase their independence of learningbecause the teacher has been provided with the autonomy in their classroomto enable the child to do so.
2.4.2. Teacher professional status
It is widely regarded that the status of teachers progressively degeneratedover the last half of the twentieth century due to the Government of India’sfailure to safeguard them from the struggles of education during theColonial and post-Independence periods, with their role reduced to a ‘meekdictator’ (Kumar 2005). This is still a prevalent issue and, for Batra(2005), teachers continue to be viewed as ‘passive agents of the state’ whoneed ‘to be “persuaded” and “trained”’ (4349). One study, conducted byRamachandran, Bhattacharjea, and Sheshagiri (2008, 71), identifies thatalthough teachers recognised the worth of their role to support children,they more frequently expressed how they were dictated to by the ‘controlraj’, diminishing their value as a professional.
618 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
Teachers also appear to be discouraged from exercising their professionaljudgement over what constitutes ‘best practice’ due to restricted time andsupport, which is further exacerbated by theories of CCA being largelyignored within teacher training curricula (Ramachandran, Bhattacharjea, andSheshagiri 2008). Subsequently, issues of low teacher confidence, dissatis-faction and developing a self-critical approach have been reported (Mooij2008).
2.4.3. Teacher empowerment
In view of the above, it would seem unsurprising that specific research iden-tifies how teachers display disempowerment (Mukhopadhyay and Sriprakash2011), where dominant bureaucratic mechanisms often leave teachers mutedin any instrumental discourse (Mehta, Gardia, and Rathore 2010;Mukhopadhyay and Sriprakash 2011). From critically examining keygovernmental policies and programmes, Batra (2005) argues that this hascreated major systemic gaps and hindered educational reform. Batra (2010)further claims that disempowering the teacher is a deliberate attempt tocontinue a system ‘largely immune to interrogation and challenge’ (8) andto reinforce ‘a neoliberal frame within which teachers’ work and worth isbeing viewed and judged’ (26). Arguably, this further highlights theproblematic nature of the neoliberal frame for the teacher. Are these govern-mental processes causal to the poor integration of CCA? The ‘pure’ form ofCCA would assert that to maintain the credibility and authenticity of thechild-centred teacher – the agent at the heart of the process – they wouldneed to embody empowerment, freed to be the very substance of the pro-cess they are trying to facilitate. Yet in light of this overall discussion, forthe teacher to be a free, inspired, self-aware person, able to explore theirown surroundings whilst inspiring the same in their young counterparts, asCCA promotes, seems a problematic concept.
3. Researching the ‘teacher’ within CCA in India: context andapproach
3.1. Context
My research was conducted in two private elementary schools in Mumbai,India, as a multiple case study of a dual case design. Both schools werelow-fee private schools with a large intake of children living in some of thepoorest residential areas of the city. It was estimated by school staff thatabout 90% of parents worked as household staff and the majority wereilliterate, with few having completed primary schooling. All teachers hadreceived in-service training of CCA, with some undertaking pre-servicetraining, and were expected to integrate it within their practice.
Compare 619
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
3.2. Research methods
The research involved online, one-to-one, semi-structured interviews in Eng-lish via Skype with six teachers, one head-teacher and one teacher-trainer overa three-month period in 2011. The interviews were conducted as a telephonediscussion without the use of video conferencing software to protect researchparticipants’ identities. Confidentiality was stressed at the beginning of eachinterview. Each interview lasted at least 40 minutes and participants selected aplace convenient for the interview to be conducted. All took place at theirhomes. In this instance, this seemed to be more advantageous compared toface-to-face interviews since participants were more at ease to disclose greaterdetail. It was equally expressed that the interviewees’ identities and theirresponses were protected from each other and not shared with senior staff.
3.3. Complexities of data collection
There were specific factors that created challenges during the initial stagesof the selection process that must be acknowledged as they determined thechoice of my methods, type of schools and number of interviewees used forthe research. It was intended that state schools would be used, based on theassumption that they would experience immediate effects of any govern-mental decisions and policies related to CCA. Procedures took longer thananticipated, determining that private schools were used instead. A teacher-trainer from Mumbai provided details of two schools that had given consentto participate in the research. Critically, these two schools were selected onthe basis that they were registered with the state, as recognised in Article18-22 of the Right to Education Act (GoI 2009), followed the national cur-riculum and undertook examinations conducted by the Maharashtra stateboard. Practical logistics further determined that observations of lessonswould not be possible for me to undertake due to children taking examsand the interruption of school holidays over three months at the time of theresearch. Unavailability of teachers for this purpose reduced the anticipatednumber of interviewees from 20 to 8 in total.
3.4. Data analysis
All of the interviews were transcribed verbatim using computer software.Each transcript from the interviews was deconstructed employing acoding-system to distinguish major themes and then further ascertain thesub-categories interlinking within these themes. These themes were basedon points discussed within the interviews that repeatedly occurred, creatingpatterns of interpretation and meaning, but which could also be implicit andinferred. Schools will be referred to as School 1 and School 2. All namesof teachers have been changed. Table 1 shows the list of participants’pseudonyms and positions.
620 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
4. Presentation of findings: implications of the ‘prescribed agenda’4.1. The changing role of the teacher
A dominant theme centred on the changing role of the teacher withinelementary education. Most of the teachers regularly commented on theTCA, suggesting that CCA was the polar opposite. To classify TCA,notions of rote learning, lecturing at the front, lacking creativity and memo-rising textbooks were prevalent. According to Roshni, teachers that adoptedTCA were simply ‘not ... bothered. Nobody concentrated on a particularchild’. Generally, TCA was referred to as an ‘older method’ (Shrijani) butwas still seen as widespread across India, hence the ongoing struggles thatwere noted of integrating CCA. For example, Shrijani acknowledged that inspite of attempts to integrate CCA she was aware that reverting to rote-learning methods was likely because ‘I still have to teach in a time frameand that’s how you get things done’. Nonetheless, it can be identified thatthe teachers’ role is still evolving. Facilitator, guide and observer were com-mon roles mentioned with regard to CCA and an approach that most triedto adopt. However, the teachers’ concept of this role entailed supportingchildren when they were struggling during teaching rather than allowingchild-initiated learning. This indicates how teachers understand their rolewithin CCA.
For most teachers, the child remaining mute within the lesson was seenas unacceptable and it was said that children should ‘have a voice’(Kamini). Yet the place of child-initiated learning and how much indepen-dence they should have were contested. On the one hand, Rati describedthat children shouldn’t have independence over what they learn simplybecause they don’t know what is best for them. Five of the teachers alsobelieved that children getting out of their chair and choosing activitiesshould not be permitted. In contrast, Kamini expressed that children’s learn-ing should be exercised through free exploration and experimentation. Sab-rina also agreed to this. However, she also recognised, ‘I am not sure Iallow the children to have a say in what they’re taught ... but I make sureI’m doing something which involves them and caters to them’. It is also
Table 1. List of participants’ pseudonyms and positions from each school.
School List of participants
School 1 Sylvia (Head-teacher)Rati (Teacher)Zahira (Teacher)Shrijani (Teacher)
School 2 Sabrina (Teacher-trainer)Roshni (Teacher)Anita (Teacher)Kamini (Former teacher: currently employed in government school)
Compare 621
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
important to note that teachers’ confidence was seen as a major determinantof how much autonomy the children have, influencing how well CCA wasintegrated, thus the less confident teachers generally followed the syllabusmore rigidly. Rati’s comments particularly inferred this.
Whilst the teachers’ autonomy over the child is noted, it seems criticalto explore their autonomy within the wider schooling environment. Mostteachers reported that their schools were welcoming of CCA. The head-teacher of School 1 and teacher-trainer of School 2 believed they hadintroduced it as best they could through support structures and professionaltraining. Yet Kamini experienced challenges, although it must be noted thatshe worked in another school. She explained that her teaching was oftenrestricted by schooling authorities (e.g., management) if she taught ‘outsidethe box’, referring to it as the ‘usual hassle’. Kamini noted, ‘there are a lotof questions asked ... I have to get permission ... so there’s not a lot of flex-ibility’. Interestingly, out of the interviewees, Kamini was arguably the mostknowledgeable of CCA but was also the only teacher to experience this‘usual hassle’. This suggests that as teachers develop in their understandingof CCA, they become aware of the major factors within their schoolingenvironment that are poorly conducive toward supporting their practice.Based on Kamini’s point, this begs the question, why is the restrictionoccurring? It could be said that Kamini is referring to an underlying issue,suggesting schooling authorities are caught within a wider system ofbureaucracy. This was strongly implied by Roshni, who argued that the gov-ernment frequently enforces set agendas that restrict a school’s indepen-dence. She stated, ‘even though you want to do something and askquestions, you have to compromise ... you always have to do it with whatthey think is the right way. ... It’s all about control.’ Critically, this exposessome of the factors affecting the wider child-centred pedagogic discourseand its implications on the role of the teacher.
4.2. The ‘prescribed’ schooling system
A major challenge also referred to is depicted through Sabrina’s comment,describing the schooling system as ‘prescribed’. According to Sabrina, ‘weare bound by text books and examinations and deadlines and to an extentthe school system’. All of the teachers argued the system was driven pre-dominantly by summative assessment, placing ‘tremendous responsibility’(Sylvia) on the teachers and causing ‘a high degree of fear and anxiety’ forthem (Sabrina). Sabrina also noted that the majority of new teachers enter-ing into the school were frequently, ‘not sure what goals to accomplishother than the portion of syllabus that has to be completed’. For theexperienced teachers, she expressed, ‘it is still a struggle to come out ofrote-learning [and being] examination-oriented because we were the genera-tion of which it was familiar to us’. Being exam-oriented is problematic for
622 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
CCA since, according to Sabrina, it has created a ‘system built on rote-learning’ and reproduces ‘what teaching is “seen” to be’.
Another point was the rigidness of the national curriculum that teachersbelieved had limited scope for developing CCA. According to Roshni, ‘ourcurriculum is very dull so [the children] only have fun if the teachers makethe curriculum practical’. Many teachers stated the struggle with planningcreatively and advocated for a flexible syllabus to enable more needs-ledplanning because ‘frankly, we are not too practical’ (Sabrina).
Perhaps the most insightful comments speculate as to why this ‘prescribed’system was in place. For Sabrina, an underlying agenda was determining this‘achievement-oriented system’ and, consequently, the purpose educationserved. She claimed, ‘education is literally just a series of hurdles that thechildren have to go through to get a good job. ... It’s just a means to get tosomething. It’s all in terms of economic development and status.’ This line ofargument was continued through Roshni’s comments, who believed educationwas reduced to serving for India to become ‘a money-dock’ in which ‘govern-ment officers [were] caught in this’ to the extent that ‘bribery’ (Roshni) and‘corruption’ (Anita) were prevalent as well. Expanding on this, it must benoted that five of the teachers recognised how their perceptions of the purposeof education differed from those of other educational stakeholders, such asparents and the government, arguing that this created confusion over their roleas a teacher who, on the one hand, believed their profession should be ‘highlyvalued’ (Sylvia), whilst at the same time they ‘are boxed into a “set” role’(Sabrina). These comments shed light on some of the causal factors impedingthe teachers’ role, whilst also suggesting what could be an underlying agendato this ‘prescribed’ system in relation to the wider discussion of this paper.
4.3. Limited professional status
All teachers acknowledged their role as being critical within educationrenewal and largely esteemed what they did, recognising the substantial partthey play within India’s development. Most of the teachers, however,believed their profession was poorly valued within society since it wasgenerally regarded as a ‘mediocre job’ (Zahira). This is demonstrated withinSabrina’s interview when she described how teaching is often referred to as‘a lazy job, a part-time job, a job that doesn’t pay very well’, causingstereotypes of teachers to be reproduced within society and reducing theirstatus even more. It was further suggested by Rati that this issue had beenpersistent, indicated through her comment, ‘it’s not like before when we allhad to respect our teachers ... now it’s all about the government’. Perhaps amore alarming issue is demonstrated by the comments of the youngerteachers who expressed frustration with this dominant mentality in society.Anita mentioned the ‘lack of voice’ she believed teachers had and Roshnialso described that most teachers are ‘ashamed’ of their profession.
Compare 623
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
All of the teachers suggested that one of the major reasons of their lim-ited professional status was the low salaries teachers received in comparisonto other professions. They indicated a disparity between trying to maintaintheir respect with emphasis from the government on their value to educate,yet with their salaries representing the opposite. Sylvia indicated that it wasnot seen as a profession to aspire to for financial reasons, contributing to itsdegenerative position. Secondly, some of the teachers distinguished the shiftwithin culture in which the former guru-shishya, the ‘teacher’ of thepre-colonial period who represented knowledge and had the privilege totransmit learning, is now diminished to something, as Roshni commented,that ‘every Tom, Dick and Harry’ can enter. She believed this change wasdue to a reaction from Colonialism as an attempt to universalise educationfor the masses. Interestingly, this former ‘guru’ figure still seemed the idealteacher to a certain degree as then ‘it was a highly respected profession’(Zahira) and arguably represented what the teachers desired today. Theteachers believed that a culmination of factors was continually devaluingtheir profession, eventually ‘making it redundant’ (Zahira).
4.4. The influential role of the ‘west’
Some of the teachers highlighted their understanding of CCA and the influ-ence of ‘western cultures’ (Zahira). The Child-Centred Approach waswidely viewed as an international pedagogy, with Kamini identifying thatthe Indian Government had made it priority because, ‘there are lot ofschools internationally who’ve incorporated this method of teaching and Ithink the number of international schools in India is also growing so I thinkthat’s why the method is catching on here’. This notion of ‘catching up’ wasalso referred to by Sylvia, who described CCA as a new, popular develop-ment, informed by recent research that has caused its growth in India. Itcould be said that this indicates how CCA is regarded as a philosophyconceptualised ‘outside’ of India but also seen as a relatively new concept.In other words, teachers were referring to the ‘internationally recognisedtheory’. References to ‘Montessori’ (Sabrina) and ‘Piaget’ (Sylvia) reinforcethat the teachers drew upon philosophers of the ‘pure’ form, yet thefundamental concepts were misconstrued within this context. Based on herunderstanding of CCA, Sabrina recognised that teachers were ‘more child-sensitive’ than ‘child-centred’ in India. Subsequently, any principles fromphilosophers of the Indian child-centred tradition were not referred to and,arguably, were seen as exempt to the origins of child-centredness.
However, it must be acknowledged that many of the teachers referred tothe ‘west’ as the primary influence over their education system and as ulti-mately driving CCA. This suggests the terms ‘international’ and the ‘west’are used interchangeably. Both Sabrina and Zahira explored this concept ofwesternisation. Critically, Sabrina believed CCA was struggling to be
624 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
integrated since India had become reliant upon ‘borrowed ideas from thewest’ but at the expense of India struggling to innovate and become crea-tive. She stated, ‘as a nation, we don’t have too many good ideas’, express-ing that ‘we literally have to think and brainstorm of ways and methods ...but that’s not good enough’. Therefore, for Sabrina, ‘the freedom to reallyunderstand is a limitation’, arguably indicating a lack of ownership over thisapproach. Ultimately, it was advocated that the challenge lay in, ‘the wayculture perceives education; the way parents perceive education, the wayeven children have been taught to perceive it’ (Sabrina), which needed tobe overcome in order for change to take place, including teachers becomingmore self-reflective to address the hurdles in their nation first before adopt-ing any more ‘outside’ ideas.
5. Discussion of the findings: the problematic nature of thechild-centred pedagogy?5.1. Limited role of the ‘child-centred’ teacher
It could be said that a plethora of examples provided by the teachers ulti-mately demonstrates their limited role and contested concepts of ‘child-cen-tred teacher’. Drawing attention initially on to the notion of autonomy, oneexample is the blurred conceptual parameters defining what the teachersunderstood autonomy to be and their relationship to the child. Most of theteachers perceived an increase in the child’s independence over their learn-ing through free movement as demonstrative of the teacher being out ofcontrol, yet this concept seems to relate more to behaviour management,not how much autonomy the teachers have. It is must be observed thatchild-initiated learning does not suggest poor discipline of the teacher. Thisis reiterated within the teachers’ definition of an ‘ideal’ teacher, whichreferred to total discipline and ‘high control’ (Rati), potentially linked to the‘guru-shishya’ ideal.
Although they largely believed that a child’s independence over theirlearning should be relatively minimal, it could equally be asserted that thesefindings do not substantiate the argument that teachers have total autonomyto the extent that they can choose whether to reject the role of a ‘child-cen-tred’ teacher. Instead, the interviewees indicate they had limited understand-ing of this role and were operating within what they understood. Arguably,this explains why CCA and the Indian child-centred tradition have beenpoorly implemented. Principles underpinning the ‘child-centred pedagogy’would advocate the need for all players engaged within its processes todevelop ‘rational and personal autonomy’ in the classroom and wouldassume that teachers can assert this in the best interest of their pupils(Doddington and Hilton 2007, 60). Otherwise, it becomes redundant.
The implications of this issue seem to determine the level of engagementteachers expect within the wider pedagogical discourse as well. A prominent
Compare 625
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
finding demonstrates there is a problematic relationship between the teacherand the state. Three of the interviews strongly implied how the state and thewider schooling authorities were influenced by the underlying bureaucraticmechanisms that merely reduced the teachers’ role and control over theirprofession. According to Anita, ‘it is very difficult for teachers to have avoice. To come together is too big a thing. It is too difficult to makechange.’ This is further demonstrated within the challenges that the teachersexperienced of the ‘prescribed’ agenda and the ‘usual hassle’ that Kaminiexperienced, restricting their practice because experimenting ‘outside thebox’ seemed to work against the ‘norms’ of the system. Reinforcing this,Sriprakash’s (2010) study argues that there are entrenched ‘school andbureaucratic cultures’ (304) that govern teachers’ perceptions of autonomyin the classroom and regulate the conditions in which CCA is implemented.Tensions have emerged for many teachers between achieving the ‘pedagogicideal’ and ‘the culture of schooling’ contributing to their uncertainty as tohow autonomy should be exercised (304).
It seems the findings also highlight the tensions over the ownership ofthis ‘new knowledge’ between India’s educational stakeholders, furtherexacerbating the role and concept of teacher. Based on the research, theteachers’ fragmented and sparse knowledge-base of the wider child-centreddiscourse exemplifies how they continue to be seen as the recipients of thisdisseminated knowledge by the state within the pedagogic process – an ide-ology reproduced throughout the system. Shrijani recognised this, stating,‘there was no theory [about CCA] when we trained. We were told how todo it but nothing else.’ Furthermore, it could be said that a poor understand-ing of the philosophical aims constructing this pedagogy has limited theteachers’ awareness of identifying the multitude of aspects and obstaclesthat inform and shape it as well as preventing them from ascertaining theirempowerment within it. Fundamentally, this entire process is paradoxical tothe ‘pure’ child-centred philosophy. On the one hand, the child is able toinitiate learning and acquire new knowledge whilst, on the other hand, theteacher is viewed as unable to manage knowledge effectively and ill-equipped to develop their own autonomy or the child’s.
An underlying, critical point has emerged. It is noted that the epistemol-ogy framing the notion of ‘teacher’ has shifted drastically in India. On theone hand, both the Indian Government and teachers seem to substantiatethat CCA is an effective pedagogy and yet it frequently appears that it isreduced to a methodology, thus undermining the very effectiveness it isseeking to achieve through their role. The tension between CCA as peda-gogy and, arguably at times, just a methodology, in India prevents any linkbeing made between the lack of success of the implementation of CCA andthe lack of true autonomy of the teacher. This ‘other teacher’ emergingpoorly conforms to any modern, child-centred ideal of teacher or thetraditional guru-shishya ideal that both represent empowerment, professional
626 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
status and autonomy. In spite of the teachers drawing upon a misinformedconcept of the child-centred teacher, they recognised that their disempower-ment was pervasive in India regardless, exemplified through one teacher’scomment expressing she was ‘ashamed’ of her job. Arguably, the ideal ofthe guru-shishya from their heritage was esteemed because it was a profes-sion that embodied respect and privilege from the wider society and wheretotal autonomy over their students could be asserted and they had freedomto lead the children’s learning. Yet this now seems to be a redundant image.Furthermore, it could be said that the teachers believed they were the onlyeducationists upholding this past image of the ideal teacher since it appearedto them that the modern-day teacher was seen to solely deliver what isprescribed by the state.
It is important to note that the teachers recognised their role was alsobeing influenced by an underlying agenda redefining their profession. Theyseemed caught within tensions that conflicted between a state that promotedCCA, whilst major pedagogic, social, political and economic processes ulti-mately contradicted this, delimiting their engagement. Thus their envisaged‘ideal’ for the teacher was continuing to degenerate. A critical point to beraised is that the implications of failing to develop the Indian child-centredtradition complementary to CCA have resulted in teachers being ‘boxed intoa “set” role’ (Sabrina). Yet the purist approaches of these philosophieswould overturn this position, ensuring the teacher’s role is understood asintrinsic to its implementation.
5.2. Underlying agendas of CCA
It is important to thus consider these possible underlying agendas sustainingthe development of CCA internationally. This will allow specific commentsmade by the teachers to surface and, by situating these voices within thewider international discourse, ultimately expose the problematic nature ofpedagogic renewal on an international level.
As highlighted within the findings, any child-centred philosophies havepredominantly been referred to as the ‘internationally recognised’ version ofCCA. This is indicated through the references to its newness as a concept,its widespread integration by international schools and agencies, and whatthe teachers believed was recent integration within Indian policies. Yet thefindings equally recognised that the concept of CCA was misconstrued bythe teachers and, arguably, by the domestic policy-makers, affecting itsimplementation. Fundamental aspects to integrate CCA had been poorlyprovided for, suggesting that the approach has been blanketed over thesystem. This strongly indicates a lack of ownership of this approach. Anextended quote from Sabrina demonstrates this:
Compare 627
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
We haven’t got anything for ourselves. As a nation, we don’t have too manygood ideas. We may have borrowed ideas from the West but sometimes that’snot good enough. We need more innovative, creative ideas for ourselves asteachers.
For Tabulawa (2003), the international nature of CCA is ‘representing aprocess of westernisation guised as quality and effective teaching’ (7). Inter-national agencies establishing CCA as a panacea to the quality issue hasundoubtedly been critical for educational reform and this is not disputed.Yet the underlying issue to this discussion draws upon a point raised byCourtney and Gravelle’s (2010) research that argues how CCA is reducedto a hegemonic, globalised pedagogy frequently marginalising the contex-tual realities of the domestic setting. It is argued that this research demon-strates that this has occurred within the Indian system as well. Furthermore,it could be said that this internationally recognised theory of CCA hasgenerated a universal criterion that defines and monitors its progress, unin-tentionally usurping any indigenous frameworks that could replace it. Theneglect of the Indian child-centred tradition would reinforce this.
One of the risks noted by Carter (2009) is that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ modelcan progressively cause standardisation within education systems. It appearsthat this is occurring in India since the teachers’ comments focusing on thegrassroots level depict a system dominated by a ‘prescribed’ agenda that isheavily standardised, thus restricting the integration of CCA rather thanenhancing it. The findings demonstrate how the teachers were facing sub-stantial pressure to ensure that their children were succeeding through sum-mative assessment, in effect, being made to ‘teach to the test’. According toSabrina, ‘many schools do just perpetuate [standardisation], caught in thewhole system of marks and competitiveness’.
Yet the teachers equally noted an underlying agenda driving this system.For Tabulawa (2003, 9), the purpose for many international agencies anddeveloping countries to promote and integrate CCA is by no means ‘value-free’. An emerging body of literature asserts there are political, social andeconomic gains that have greatly influenced this international ‘push’ instead(Windschitl 2002; Tabulawa 2003). Initially, this paper observes that this‘push’ provoked the Indian Government to respond more effectively to theintegration of CCA in spite of the Indian child-centred tradition already con-ceptualised. On the one hand, it is argued that Indian educational policiesalready mirrored the priorities set by the international bodies and were beingcarried out with political will prior to the international announcements(Colclough and De 2010). Thus, India may have implemented a form ofchild-centred education eventually without the need for international inter-vention. However, this view seems untenable and it can be speculated thatthe motivation and incentive for India to implement CCA was driven by anunderlying agenda offering some form of gain within the global economy.
628 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
Focusing initially upon this notion of ‘political will’ as a component toglobalisation, Tabulawa (2003, 11) argues that CCA is frequently reduced to a‘prescription’ by the international agencies for developing countries to enablepolitical democratisation for ‘legitimising global power relations’. Examiningthis within the Indian context, education is regarded to be heavily politicised,which has greatly shaped its former and current landscape, where internationalagencies have also been responsible to a certain degree (Little 2008). How-ever, it is possible to speculate that the conflicting viewpoints from differenteducational stakeholders over the purpose of education, as identified withinthe findings, reinforce this and this is further highlighted by the ambiguousrole of the teacher. It is suggested that politicisation within the child-centreddiscourse must be expected since pure child-centred philosophies are designedto totally redefine and question the former knowledge systems in place thatindirectly challenge any authoritarian system and the status quo (Windschitl2002). This is further demonstrated through the rigidness of this ‘prescribed’agenda and the teachers being disabled from questioning the current state oftheir system.
Tabulawa (2003) further argues that the politicisation of CCA is usedmerely as a guise to serve neoliberalism. Whilst it is observed that CCA inIndia has, to a certain degree, been conformed to become a political tool,there is more indication within this paper that education is progressivelydetermined by a neoliberal framework. It is noted that this debate is highlycontested, yet Sadgopal (2011) argues it is critical to consider this ‘bittersweet truth’ (5) behind the current Indian education system to understandthe way it is organised and conducted. Therefore, this paper asserts it pro-vides a useful framework for examining this underlying ‘agenda’, the con-cept of teacher within it and the conditions that frame the integration ofCCA.
The teachers strongly suggested that education had become a reductionistprocess, primarily serving ‘economic development and status’ (Sabrina).The over-reliance on an achievement-oriented system as a means of definingquality as well as it being ‘teacher-proofed’, delimiting their profession to‘a technician’ (Sarangapani 2009, 203), could also substantiate this view-point. Essentially, these are characteristics of neoliberalism (Kumar 2010).However, it is asserted that the relationship of neoliberalism and CCA willalways be problematic in policy (Tabulawa 2003). Arguably, the role of theteacher is caught within these two competing theories in India. It is assertedthat neoliberal principles enable the state to ‘ingeniously [distance] itself’from any problems within the education system where teachers ‘embody thenon-functioning of an entire system’ (Balagopalan 2005, 91). This wouldexplain the tensions experienced by the teachers identified within the find-ings. Furthermore, it could be argued that this ideology would have implica-tions for the Indian child-centred tradition as well. According to Kumar andSarangapani (2004), philosophical aims of education have become lost by
Compare 629
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
many international agencies who, instead, frequently favour neoliberal poli-cies to gauge the commitment of developing countries to school effective-ness. Education under the neoliberal agenda serves free-market principles.Yet it could be that this is under the guise of offering an advanced, modern-ised state capable of competing in the new international global economyand has reduced the child-centred pedagogic process. If this is the case, isthere space for indigenous expressions of child-centred philosophies – gen-erally rooted within past heritage and culturally specific – to be understood,recognised and developed?
6. Conclusion
It has been the objective of this paper to analyse, critique and evaluate theteacher within the child-centred pedagogic discourse, based on empiricalanalysis of teachers’ interviews from two Indian elementary schools. Aplethora of issues contributing toward the limited role of the teacher andpoor implementation of CCA have been demonstrated. It is argued that theteacher is critical for the sustainability of CCA as well as the Indian child-centred tradition since it is an intrinsic, interdependent element of whatdefines it.
Firstly, this paper highlights that fundamental aspects constructing CCAhave been poorly dealt with, resulting in what appear, instead, to be incon-sistencies in its very concept. Arguably, the CCA is blanketed over the cur-rent educational system as a ‘prescription’ and, although it has been seen asa panacea, it would seem this pedagogic process is at times merely ‘childsensitive’ (Sabrina) and reduced to a teaching method in the classroom. Itseems there is a lack of teacher ownership of the approach due to the tea-cher being kept at a distance from the instrumental processes that informand guide the realisation of CCA. However, the teachers’ willingness toengage with this discourse indicates they are by no means passive or willingto continue as a recipient of the state’s ‘prescription’. They no longer wantto remain isolated from pedagogic processes that inform their professionaldevelopment. There was a clear desire from the teachers to have freedomand trust to pursue their own creativity and expression of CCA within theclassroom and have a stake in this educational discourse.
This paper has also demonstrated the complexities underpinning theinternational child-centred discourse, cutting to the very heart of interna-tional dialogue and pronouncements on education. Whilst it is acknowl-edged that the level of involvement of different nations throughoutpedagogic processes to assert common values and aspirations for our chil-dren internationally is too difficult to ascertain, it appears that somehow theconnection between India and its historical child-centred heritage has beendisconnected. Whether this is through the embryonic stage of CCA beingformed on the international stage or through a lack of self-reflection by
630 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
educationists within India remains to be seen. It is critical, nonetheless, thatthis ‘new’ knowledge of CCA is not monopolised, otherwise it will con-tinue to universalise the term and standardise its integration, paradoxical toits intent.
For India to rediscover the role and concept of the teacher and the philo-sophical aims of CCA that can help to define quality, a bridge must beforged by looking back to their domestic educational heritage to regain theessence of their values, ownership, autonomy and voice. This must be cou-pled with a more detailed analysis of what is becoming a prevailing theoryfor the modernised state – the neoliberal agenda – and its influence uponthe wider educational paradigm of the CCA and, more critically, the role ofthe teacher, as it is clear that these tensions could continue to be symptom-atic for other nations.
AcknowledgementsThe author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and insightfulfeedback and Dr. Marie Lall, Institute of Education, University of London, for herinvaluable support throughout this research.
ReferencesAggarwal, J. 1999. Theory and Principles of Education: Philosophical and Socio-
logical Bases of Education. 10th revised ed. New Delhi: Vikas PublishingHouse.
Balagopalan, S. 2005. “An Ideal School and the Schooled Ideal: Education at theMargins.” In Educational Regimes in Contemporary India, edited by R. Chopraand P. Jeffrey, 83–98. New Delhi: Sage.
Batra, P. 2005. “Voice and Agency of Teachers: Missing Link in National Curricu-lum Framework 2005.” Economic and Political Weekly 40 (40): 4347–4356.
Batra, P. 2009. Education for All Mid-Decade Assessment: Reclaiming the Spacefor Teachers to Address the UEE Teaching-Learning Quality Deficit. NewDelhi: National University of Educational Planning and Administration. http://www.educationforallinindia.com/Reclaiming-the-Space-for-Teachers-to-Address-the-UEE-Teaching-2.pdf
Batra, P. 2010. “Transforming Classroom Practice: Teacher Education and Peda-gogy in India.” Presentation at EPISTEME 4, Central Institute of Education,University of Delhi, HBCSE, Mumbai, January 5–9.
Carter, L. 2009. “Globalisation and Learner-Centred Pedagogies.” Journal forActivist Science and Technology Education 1 (1): 57–60.
Colclough, C., and A. De. 2010. RECOUP Working Paper, No.27: The Impact ofAid on Education in India. London: DFID.
Courtney, J., and M. Gravelle. 2010. “Switching Sides: The Battle between Globa-lised Pedagogy and National Identity in the Development of an Early LiteracyProgramme in Cambodia.” London Digest, Issue 7, Autumn: Citizenship. http://www.ioe.ac.uk/about/documents/About_Overview/Courtney_J_Gravelle_M.pdf
Doddington, C., and M. Hilton. 2007. Child-Centred Education: Reviving the Crea-tive Tradition. London: Sage.
Compare 631
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
Government of India. 1986a. National Policy on Education 1986. New Delhi: Min-istry of Human Resource Development.
Government of India. 1986b. National Policy on Education 1986: Programme ofAction. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Government of India. 1992. National Policy on Education 1992. New Delhi: Gov-ernment of India.
Government of India. 2009. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Educa-tion Act. Indian Parliament Adopted 4th August 2009. New Delhi: Ministry ofLaw and Justice. http://education.nic.in/Elementary/free%20and%20compul sory.pdf
Joshi, K. 2011. Educational Philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. http://kireetjoshiarchives.com/aurobindo_mother/contemporary_crisis/educational_philosophy.php
Kliebard, H. 1995. The Struggle for the American Curriculum: 1893–1958. 2nd ed.New York: Routledge.
Kremer, M., K. Muralidharan, N. Chaudhury, J. Hammers, and F. Rogers. 2005.“Teacher Absence in India: A Snapshot.” Journal of the European EconomicAssociation 3 (2–3): 658–667.
Kumar, K. 1993. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948). PROSPECTS: TheQuarterly Review of Education 23 (3/4): 507–517. Paris: UNESCO, Interna-tional Bureau of Education.
Kumar, K. 2005. Political Agenda of Education: A Study of Colonialist andNationalist Ideas. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Sage.
Kumar, K., and P. Sarangapani. 2004. Background Paper Prepared for the Educa-tion for All Global Monitoring Report 2005, the Quality Imperative: History ofthe Quality Debate. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001466/146655e.pdf
Kumar, R. 2010. Neoliberalism, Education and the Politics of Capital: SearchingPossibilities of Resistance. Radical Notes. December 2. http://radicalnotes.com/content/view/150/39/
Lall, M. 2010. Child-Centered Learning and Teaching Approaches in Myanmar.Yangon: British Council.
Little, A. 2008. EFA Politics, Policies and Progress: CREATE Pathways to AccessResearch Monograph No. 13. Brighton: University of Sussex; London: Instituteof Education, University of London.
Mehrotra, D. 2007. “Origins of Alternative Education in India: A Continuing Jour-ney.” In Alternative Schooling in India, edited by S. Vittachi, N. Raghavan, andK. Raj, 1–10. New Delhi: Sage.
Mehrotra, S., and R. Parthasarthi. 2006. “Private Provision of Elementary Educa-tion in India: Findings of a Survey in Eight States.” Compare 36 (4): 421–442.
Mehta, D., A. Gardia, and H. Rathore. 2010. “Teacher Participation in the Deci-sion-Making Process: Reality and Repercussions in Indian Higher Education.”Compare 40 (5): 659–671.
Mooij, J. 2008. “Primary Education, Teachers’ Professionalism and Social Classabout Motivation and Demotivation of Government School Teachers in India.”International Journal of Educational Development 28 (5): 508–523. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.10.006.
Mukhopadhyay, R., and A. Sriprakash. 2011. “Global Frameworks, Local Contin-gencies: Policy Translations and Education Development in India.” Compare 41(3): 311–326.
632 A. Smail
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
Narayan, K., and J. Mooij. 2010. “Solutions to Teacher Absenteeism in Rural Gov-ernment Primary Schools in India: A Comparison of Management Approaches.”The Open Educational Journal 3: 63–71. doi: 10.2174/1874920801003010063.
Prabhananda, S. 2003. “Profiles of Famous Educators: Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902).” Prospects XXXIII (2). Paris: UNESCO.
Ramachandran, V., S. Bhattacharjea, and K. Sheshagiri. 2008. Primary SchoolTeachers; the Twist and Turns of Everyday Practice: A Project Supported byAzim Premji Foundation, Bangalore. New Delhi: Educational Resource Unit.
Sadgopal, A. 2011. “Cover Story: Neoliberal.” Frontline 28 (14): 4–24, July. http://pay.hindu.com/ebook%20-%20ebfl20110715part1.pdf
Sarangapani, P. 2009. “The Open Classroom and Its Critics.” In Concerns, Conflictsand Cohesions: Universalisation of Elementary Education in India, edited by P.Rustagi, 191–209. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sriprakash, A. 2009. “‘Joyful Learning’ in Rural Indian Primary Schools: An Anal-ysis of Social Control in the Context of Child-Centered Discourses.” Compare39 (5): 629–641.
Sriprakash, A. 2010. “Child-Centred Education and the Promise of DemocraticLearning: Pedagogic Messages in Rural Indian Primary Schools.” InternationalJournal of Educational Development 30 (3): 297–304. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedu-dev.2009.11.010.
Tabulawa, R. 2003. “International Aid Agencies, Learner-Centred Pedagogy andPolitical Democratisation: A Critique.” Comparative Education 39 (1): 7–26.doi: 10.1080/03050060302559.
Thangavelu, S. 2006. Activity-Based Learning- a Radical Change in PrimaryEducation. India: UNICEF. http://www.unicef.org/india/education_1546.htm
UN. 1989. “Convention on the Rights of the Child.” General Assembly Resolution44/25. Adopted November 20, 1989. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 1990.“World Declaration on Education for All and Framework for Action to MeetBasic Learning Needs.” Adopted by the World Conference on Education forAll: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, March 5–9.
UNESCO. 2000. “The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All: MeetingOur Collective Commitments 2000.” Adopted by the World Education Forum,Dakar, Senegal, April 26–28.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2009. Manual: Child-Friendly Schools.New York: UNICEF.
Vittachi, S., N. Raghavan, and K. Raj. 2007. Alternative Schooling in India. NewDelhi: Sage.
Windschitl, M. 2002. “Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation ofDilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural and PoliticalChallenges Facing Teachers.” Review of Educational Research 72 (2): 131–175.doi: 10.3102/00346543072002131.
Compare 633
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
03:
47 2
5 N
ovem
ber
2014
