Welcome to Threadbare, I am your host Suresh P. Thomas.

In the first episode of the two-part series titled 'Schools and Textbooks', Dr Manish Jain had spoken about the history of curriculum revisions in India, and the dangers of using school textbooks as a political weapon.

In the second episode, we examine curriculum revisions in the context of grassroots structural reforms that the Indian education system needs to make.

Our guest is Professor R. Govinda, former Vice-Chancellor, National University of Education Planning, New Delhi. Professor Govinda is one of the foremost educationists in the country and is a member of several national and international bodies, such as the Council of consultant Fellows of International Institute of Educational Planning, and the International Advisory Group of the global monitoring report, UNESCO. His current areas of interest cover primary education decentralised management, policy analysis, human rights and democracy.

Welcome to Threadbare, Professor R. Govinda

Prof Govinda 

Thank you. 

Suresh 

Can you please provide a brief outline of the process of textbook production in India in terms of the working of NCERT [National Council of Educational Research and Training] its vision, the various processes that constitute curriculum revision activity.

Prof Govinda

You know, as far as textbook production is concerned, in India, it is the responsibility of each of the states. And normally, the State textbook production, textbook preparation and production, these are two different things. Preparation is done by the State Council of Education, Research and Training. And production is done by the textbook [cor]perations, or whatever we call [them]. That is normally the procedure. Actually, when we got Independence, I think I'd need to really look at it [a] little historically. In the early decades, it was a lot of confusion. There was no textbook properly prescribed in many places, and the full process started in the mid-60s with the State institutes of education coming into [the] picture, which became State councils of education, research and training, I would say till the 70s and maybe early 80s. Also, the NCERT supported them to develop their capability for curriculum making and textbook production. But 80s onwards NCERT itself started producing textbooks. Till that time they were not producing.

Now, this has set in a way, in my view, it's disturbed the applecart as they say, disturbed the balance, because some States afterwards, began copying the textbooks translating them into their language, badly very often, and some States opposed what NCERT is doing. So, it became a different issue afterwards, issues that were not there till then, it all started afterwards. So, that is [why] our textbook production today is a very complex thing, which some States consider they have the full right, and then they will do whatever they want to do. But there are people who say that we should look [at this] from a national angle and produce textbooks which are national in nature. This has become a very controversial issue from their point of view. As far as curriculum making is concerned, curriculum building is essentially a statement of principles, in terms of both pedagogic, and also in terms of normative concerns. 

According to the contemporary social, economic and socio-political considerations, what is worth learning, that is what curriculum prescription means, curriculum is essentially a technical pedagogic cognitive engagement, that what to read, what is worth learning at your point of time, and how it should be really delivered to the children of the country. That is what curriculum framework tells us by itself. Ordinarily, it should not be controversial at all.

But we all know that curriculum making has become such a controversial proposition, particularly from the late 90s. It became a big controversy. Till that time it was dormant, but it became [a] big controversy from 1990s onwards. Now, I think it has become some sort of a play field for everyone. Everyone who wants to enter, the journalist, the politicians, the academics, everybody wants to play. They're in that play field. But I don't think this playground, has really helped much, the children who have to learn.

Also, much of the debates and discourses that happen in my view, regarding curriculum today, they are all essentially concerns of the elites of this country, for whom it may matter, or it may not matter. It's a very, very, very unusual, paradoxical kind of situation that we are in, that you know, the NCERT produces textbooks, which are used, to be used by Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) affiliated schools. You will be surprised to know that there are only 25,000 schools in the country, which are affiliated or even less than 25,000, affiliated to CBSE. But most of the discussions is on NCERT textbooks in this country unfortunately. That is because this is the concerns of the elites.

I would say that the remaining schools are all with the State boards and State boards are so uneven, and some of them produce textbooks which are in such horrible condition. But nobody seems to be really seriously concerned about what happens to [these] children. 

[The] second paradoxical situation is that people who study, the children who study in CBSE-affiliated schools, most of them are private self-financing, high-end, high-fee charging schools. These children, they enter high-end education systems, and half of them don't really stay in this country, go to IITs and IIMs and then travel abroad and then get their big pay packet. That's what they are concerned [about]. I don't know whether they are really concerned about what is taught in the 9th standard and 10th standard. 

Now the remaining very large number of children that we are talking, that is, nearly 40 to 50% [of] children don't complete even eighth grade. For them, of what concern is it, about what is included in the 10th standard textbook or 11th standard textbook... And even those who complete 8th standard and enter secondary school, if we go by various evaluation studies, many of them are incapable of really following too much in it. They are not able to fully read and understand and comprehend all of [the curriculum]. So for whom are we fighting this battle? It always bothers me. Are we fighting the battle for these children of this country? Are we fighting a battle for our own satisfaction? That is how I look at this whole controversy. 

Suresh 

So Professor, when you're speaking about the present, education policy and the system being tilted in favour of the elites, how do you see a way out of it? 

Prof Govinda

You know, why I brought in this issue is that curriculum at one level is a very abstract idea. Deciding on, theoretically deciding on what is worth learning, what is worth teaching, how it should be taught What are the pedagogic principles that we follow? These are all theoretical issues that we are talking about, when we get one level. But finally, curriculum carries meaning only when it manifests itself in the classrooms. Now, how can we ignore the reality of our classrooms in this country, where 50% of the children don't pass out of even 8th grade? So that is what bothers me. So for me, if we really want to make curriculum meaningful in this country, to the majority of the children, not just a minority of the CBSE-affiliated schools [and] maybe a few thousand schools in each of the State boards, where children really do well, most of them in English medium, and then move ahead, if [we want to make curriculum meaningful] to the remaining large number of people, then I think we require more structural reform. Without structural reform of the system I don't think curriculum is going to really make much [of an] impact on the education system itself, and particularly for the learning of the children who are from the marginalised groups, and marginalised in this case is not a small margin: unfortunately, [the] margin occupies more than the main, that is the reality of this country.

Suresh

When you say we need to reimagine curriculum in a more meaningful way, we also need to take into account the fact that the way the present system is structured, we have States who are given the authority to devise their own curriculum, and you have obviously the NCERT, though it caters to a minority, it generates the maximum discussion points. So is this really a weakness in that sense, the fact that there are two competing systems?

Prof Govinda:  

You know, considering our country's diversity, that is, our school education was kept in the States list, when the Constitution was made. And this was realised not just during the when the Constitution was framed, even in the [Government of India] 1935 Act during the Colonial period also, the diversity across the country was recognised, and school education was firmly placed in the hands of the State governments.

And the idea is that we needed the relevance to the life of the people: that should be reflected in the curriculum. Otherwise, curriculum is not very meaningful if it is not reflecting the life of the people around them. That is how it was in the State subject. And I consider that it's the right move, that every State develops its own curriculum more meaningfully, not like the way they are doing now. It is not about fighting between NCERT and then the State government, as many of them are doing now. It is, actually, you need to really engage with this more substantively, every State government should do [this]. If you ask me the question, the CBSE schools also should follow the curriculum that is being followed in a particular state, why should they not. For instance, if I go to France, andstay there for my job for three years, will my child not study the French curriculum? Will I carry my curriculum with [me]? So why not the State [and] Central government people also if they are in Kerala, Tamil Nadu [for instance], why don't they study the curriculum that is prescribed by/followed in Tamil Nadu or Kerala? I see no reason why we should not do it. This is essentially an elitist idea that you know, we are privileged people. And our privilege should not be taken away because I am there in some other State. I don't want to learn. I don't want to study the syllabus according to what the Kerala government says, Kerala SCERT says, but I want to take my own curriculum. This is a typical elitist view. For me, yes, every state should have engaged with this more substantively about curriculum making and then develop textbooks which are meaningful, locally relevant. I completely disagree with the idea that the Lakshadweep people can have the same curriculum as Arunachal Pradesh. It doesn't make any sense to me, in fact. So I am of the view that this whole idea of prescribing or competing with the national curriculum is meaningless. It is destroying the life of the children. State governments should really invest more in thinking and reflecting on their own, develop[ing] good groups of this. This was happening till [the] mid-70s and early 80s. But afterwards, it has been abandoned. Many of the States have lost their capacity to do good work. I wish that we [would] revive it.

Suresh

So what do you think should be the role of the State in framing an education policy, in terms of the extent to which a government's role is permissible? How [have] both history and science have become ideological battlegrounds, especially when they are corrupted with views taken from mythology? To what extent is it agreeable, is it acceptable that we consider this as an elitist issue, that wouldn’t influence people from a non-privileged background? Isn't the issue relevant to those people also, even though they may not be directly affected right at this moment?

Prof Govinda

The idea of drawing up a national policy on education is a bit [of a] dated idea. These are broad guidelines that we draw. You know, they were very relevant when the nation state was emerging. At that time, it could act as a unifying factor. So we have one national policy for the country. But I don't see that it is really making much sense. Second, I want to say, what is a policy statement? In India national policies, even if it goes through the Parliament, [they are not] binding on anyone to follow, including the Government of India. There are many things that are written in the policy which have not been followed by anyone in this country. And that happened [with the National Policy on Education] 1968 policy, that happened [with the National Policy on Education] 1986 policy. And that is happening now also, in fact. So policies are only broad ideas. It's an omnibus document, which brings together so many ideas, very nice things are said there, and there ends the matter. So you have produced a beautiful book, [but] we are that it doesn't make much sense. Now, whether State[s] should have their own policy? In some ways, yes, but policy-making should [have] more engagement with the subjects of concern. For instance, how do you utilise digital technology in improving school education should be a substantive engagement. Similarly, how do we really ensure that the schools function better, and then transact all that we talked about in the curriculum, or syllabus or textbooks meaningfully should be a substantive engagement. And whether you will draw a policy, or do not draw [a] policy [is] irrelevant for me. Unfortunately, these are all superficial things. It is good for our debates, middle-class debate and TV debates. It is very good to have a policy. Beyond that, what have policies done in this country? Did we follow anything that the Kothari commission told us in [the] 1960s, and 68 policy? Have they followed what the 1986 policy set? Now, are we following the [National Education Policy] 2020 policy? We brought in the Right to Education (RTE) Act in 2010. Right to Education Act is not an ordinary policy statement. It is a legal document, and that too a law deriving from the fundamental rights chapter. It is not negotiable. Now, are we following the Right to Education Act today?

Suresh

But in that sense, doesn't curriculum revision also become part of the structural reforms that you were referring to earlier? So when a curriculum is revised in the way that it is being done now, are you suggesting that it wouldn't have that big an impact on a section of people or the majority of [the] population of this country, who are completely out of these debates?

Prof Govinda

I think so. Because you know, that much of our activities are all so centred around upper and middle class people that their concerns and their schools, which [as] I said, [are] not more than [one] lakh schools, you know, [of the] 15 lakh schools [in the country]. And these schools will not be more than [one] lakh altogether, even if you add good schools of the State boards, and all of them. So we are only engaging, we are out of sync with the reality of this country. Now, whether it is structural reform, or better functionality of the State system, these are all questions that we can start out [with]. But in reality, we are out of sync, our curriculum debate is also out of sync with the reality. We talk of the constructivist approach to your national curriculum framework. Excellent idea. There is nobody [who] can really question [this]. I think very nice things have been said in the national curriculum framework, and [they are] very technically, very sound. But of what relevance is it in a school which doesn't open half the time, or a school where the teacher doesn't go, or the school where the teacher sends a proxy teacher, or a school where the children don't have a place to sit and read, even. Of what relevance? And I'm not talking about a minority, I told you out of 15 lakh [schools], so I would brand at least 13 to 14 lakh schools [as] in very bad shape in this country. It is only 10% that are relatively better.

You know, Right to Education prescribes how many hours the school should function every day, how many hours the teacher should be there, available, doing education-related work, how many days every school should function every year, but none of that is followed. Unfortunately, this is not just a matter of [the] middle class alone. Our Parliament, which was unanimous in adopting the Right to Education Act, has not discussed wholesale the Right to Education Act and its implementation even once. It is 13 years since the [RTE] Act was adopted. And not once have they engaged in a day-long debate. Look at any other country. In UK or USA, the way they vote for education, threadbare they discuss what is happening. School education comes every other day in [the] debate[s] in [the] UK Parliament, but what are we doing? Our Parliamentarians are least concerned and when a debate happens in State government[s], State assemblies also, they are not talking about the real issues, they are talking about fighting a battle with the Government of India. That is not our concern. You look after your own children properly. That is what the Legislative Assembly should do. That is what the Parliament should do, not really fighting this political battles alone. That is the problem. We are out of sync completely, even when we make the curriculum. Therefore, structural reforms and curriculum reform will have to go hand in hand.

Suresh  

Professor, just to conclude the discussion, to touch upon the point that you just mentioned, the curriculum debates, because they are imagined as primarily political debates. Most of these debates centred around revisions in history textbooks or social science textbooks, whereas massive changes that are, that have been made in various science textbooks or across the country, which might be of much more practical relevance to a student who grows up and becomes the citizen of this country in terms of what that citizen contributes to the country, how do you look at it?

Prof Govinda

The science and mathematics teaching even in the best of the schools is poor in this country. And in the government schools, if you go, science and mathematics are often taught by people who have never studied science and mathematics in their graduation, so many of them are like [a] mismatch. See, we are not really seriously attending to all these things, because the small minority of the people don't really depend too much on what is taught in the school. They can make those things themselves, [students of the] schools affiliated to CBSE or ICSE and some good schools, so-called high-end schools in the State. Those children are not depend[ent] so much on what is taught in the schools, they go to tuition classes they attend that NEET training programmes, they go to Kota and then spend lakhs of rupees and get into IITs and IIMs and they fly away from India. They are not bothered about it. But shouldn’t we be bothered by people who are living in this country, about ourselves, rather than those who leave us and then go away? That is the real issue. So, the science and mathematics have been completely neglected. This doesn't mean that there are no good people coming out of our system. But that's a very small number who are coming out of a system, who generally use an alternate pathway, not necessarily the school alone, and they really do well for themselves. And this is what Professor Amartya Sen has called "privileged excellence". If you take away the privilege, probably they will not accept, that's what Amartya Sen says. So that's how we need to really look at [this] and reform. We need to engage in that, piecemeal [the] curriculum cannot be reformed, without really reforming the school education system. 

Suresh 

Thank you so much, Professor, for this wonderful discussion. 

Prof Govinda:  

Thank you

(This transcript has been edited for clarity)