Notes on Foundational Literacy and
Numeracy (FLN), in the context of but not limited to its conception and
implementation under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the
curricular avatars in MCD and Delhi Govt schools.
This note on FLN has been prepared by
Lok Shikshak Manch after rounds of discussions amongst ourselves and other
scholars.
Howsoever
it may be conceived in policy-related documents, it is clear that on ground FLN
means and impacts both content/ curriculum (the 'what', and thereby objectives
of education) as well as pedagogy (the 'how').
Interest of the Private/Business Forces
●
The conception of FLN is drawn
from the idea of Learning Outcomes, which in turn is umbilically linked to the
business, industrial and market models.
●
The FLN discourse is heavily
influenced by international/multilateral bodies, both seemingly benign like
those associated with the UN (and agendas like SDGs etc) and those working
along with finance/capital promoting agencies like the WB.
●
It is tied to the learning crisis
narrative generated and pushed by private organisations - like Pratham (ASER
reports), Central Square Foundation, Teach for India etc. - and supported by
governments in compromising positions.
●
This is an instrumentalist rather
than a rights-based conception of education. It is reflected in overturning
'inputs' without having ensured them in practice and introducing 'outcomes' in
the RTE Act. The RTE Rules were amended on 20th February 2017 ‘to include
reference on class-wise, subject-wise Learning Outcomes.’ (PIB release) It
begins by claiming, on a dangerously false basis, that the problem of access
has been solved and is thus irrelevant now. Also, it diverts from the issue of
lakhs of gravely underfunded and under-resourced schools and their communities.
●
There is widespread, almost
across-political party spectrum, support for this minimalist education policy.
This is, for example, reflected in the prominent role given to Pratham by the
Union Government as well as the GNCT-Delhi, in the making of their respective
(but aligned) policies. Similarly, a Congress-affiliated Trust had awarded the
Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development for the year 2021 to
the same organisation.
●
It represents a business-industry-managerial,
data-driven and market-oriented approach to education. Thus, the limiting and
inhumane phenomenon of private production for profit and external control over
alienated labour is falsely taken as providing a solution for 'problems in
education' or even as an example for it.
●
The 'learning outcomes' or the FLN
agenda has got little to do with, in spite of its language and stated concerns
with equity, Universal Human Rights and everything to do with standardising
Global Labour Supply for transnational capital.
●
The discourse has advanced
in-tandem with the sidelining and
subversion of public, academic bodies by privileging NGOs and other private
sector, corporate affiliated organisations, even in policy-making and implementation
framework.
The narrative of ‘Falling Standards’
●
FLN and the measures associated
with it today resonate with the earlier example of the USA's NCLB Act (2001)
and the testing and accountability regimen put in the name of 'standards';
Minimum Levels of Learning document produced in 1991 by the NCERT under the
mandate of the National Policy on Education 1986. These earlier avatars were
not limited to the areas of language and mathematics and posited more noble
concerns about 'falling standards' and 'equalising outcomes' across sections of
students, but also included conceptions of accountability, performance goals,
achieving functionality and social usefulness by the strange means of reducing
curriculum/curricular goals etc. There is a shift though, as, whereas, the
overt concern behind NCLB was with 'standards', the recent policies in our
parts of the world have been framed in the backdrop of the narrative of
'learning crisis', and hence have been overtly minimalist instead of needing to
hide behind the fig leaf of 'excellence'.
●
FLN dilutes curriculum and
educational standards. It reduces educational goals to outcomes and content to
language and mathematics; thereafter, further reducing these two areas to the
minimalist conceptions of literacy and numeracy.
●
FLN fragments and vandalises the
curriculum. It is in line with the larger policy of dumbing down, deskilling
and de-intellectualisation. The sidelining of other curricular areas like
music, games, social studies, EVS etc. (even while glamorising fragments of and
exhibitionist performances in these) is in line with other curricular
subversions and compromises like vocational training, happiness curriculum,
deshbhakti curriculum, EMC etc. as carried out in the Delhi government (and,
lately, in MCD) schools.
●
Schools are being degraded to
coaching/tuition centres; especially affecting those who need the most rigorous
education, kids from working class and marginalised sections studying in public
schools.
●
The no-detention policy (NDP)
under the RTE Act (but existent up to varying grades across states even prior
to the Act) was seen by some vocal critics as having led to a dilution of
'learning levels'. The section was finally amended in January 2019, leaving it
to the states' discretion whether to adopt it and to what level. The Rules of
the Act had already been changed in 2017 to introduce the guarantee of
'learning outcomes'.
●
We observe a lower emphasis on
Maths across measures and programs associated with FLN - both, in documents and
in practice.
●
The FLN conception fits in with
the reduction of education into schooling, schooling into learning, learning
into (measurable) outcomes, and with the parallel reduction of Language,
Mathematics and EVS into Language and Mathematics and further into Literacy and
Numeracy.
●
Under the influence of FLN,
rigorous syllabus is seen as a disadvantage and threat.
●
The FLN approach is based on and
extenuates the compartmentalisation of knowledge and subject areas. It is then
sure to push this fracture into the affective domain.
Destroying Pedagogy
●
FLN compromises pedagogic
principles. It is aligned with and tends to centralisation of management and
administration of schools and classroom teaching, through enforced content,
schedules, time-tables, tests etc; it thereby reduces teachers' academic and professional
autonomy.
●
The fetishes of testing,
categorising students in levels, labelling them and 'teaching at the right
level' (TaRL) are likely to lead to segregation among students, apart from
differential curricular content and assessment. This is apart from the harmful and
dangerous phenomenon, already documented in research wrt the above-mentioned
avatars, of subtle exclusion of students, 'teaching to test', manipulation of
data/results, unfair assessment of teachers' work etc.
●
This erroneous emphasis on FLN and
learning outcomes inevitably leads to the point where the NEP talks of children
entering even the earliest grades to be 'school ready' rather than the other
way around! The conception of a 'Preparatory Class' before grade 1 and the
'school preparation module' attest to the performative focus under the FLN
approach.
●
An attempt is made to resolve the
contradiction between more progressive, researched and constructivist
pedagogical approaches like whole language, emergent literacy etc on the one
hand, and phonics, the traditionalist method of teaching from bottom-up and
focussing on letters, matras through the adoption of 'Balanced Literacy
Approach' (NCF-FS, Section 4.5.1.4)
●
It is instructive that while under
NEP/FLN, a lot of material and text has been supplied by the SCERT and SSA,
much of it is restricted to charts on ‘counting’, ‘tables’, the varnamala etc.
●
Under its Chunauti program (2016),
the Delhi Government brought out the Pragati Series of texts in collaboration
with Pratham as a 'supplementary learning material'. Though these texts were
often used as substitute material to the NCERT books, they had to refer to NCF
2005 and the Learning without Burden report (1993) to earn legitimacy and
credibility.
●
Likewise, variations and diversity
among children's learning processes is also projected as a handicap.
●
It is not clear how robust
textbooks like, say, the post-2005 NCERT ones, and an unhindered and
uncompromising curriculum would not anyway subsume the objectives of attaining
the minimalist proficiency levels under FLN.
●
Often, children's natural and
normal progression with time, as they advance through classroom interaction and
processes, is credited to the FLN strategy!
●
Aspects like Play, Building a
Positive Relationships between Teachers and Children and Conversations,
Stories, Toys, Music, Art and Craft (NCF-FS 2022, Sections 1.4, 4.3 and 4.4,
respectively) are, at best, made externally-driven (and, thereby, turned into
anxiety-generating exercises!) or, much more frequently, completely sacrificed
at the altar of FLN targets. (See MCD Time-Table)
●
It is not clear how reading a
simple sentence differs from reading a paragraph and a short story, especially
when the latter is composed of the former. Similarly, while it is recognised
that a 'Premature introduction of the script to very young children who are in
their early stages of oral language acquisition would be counterproductive for
literacy development', it is also suggested that 'script reading and writing
requires explicit instruction [with] meaning-making...not [to] be postponed
till [the] end of learning all aksharas..'(NCF-FS, p 257 and 260, resp) This
need for 'explicit instruction' is then supposed to gel with the idea of
'indirect teaching for developing conceptual understanding' (from 'Learning Maths
with Jodogyan', page 19 of 'Bridging Learning Gaps', a Delhi Government
document). A similar hotchpotch of conceptual articulation can be seen when the
NCF-FS brings together a range of disparate terms like emergent literacy,
varna, decoding, meaning making, fluency, comprehension etc.
●
Experience and observations of the
emanation of FLN in schools: no textbooks, textbooks replaced with worksheets
(often standalone and delivered online), students torn from their classes and
segregated 'as per levels', haphazard modules making even lesser sense to
teachers, extensive data and report filing, acute loss of teaching time and
reduction in meaningful, relaxed and prolonged interaction with students.
●
Continuous Assessment under FLN,
in gross terms, has also led to a further reduction in actual teaching time.
This is purely apart from the time consumed by the constant filing of reports
and data. Much of it resembles the round-the-clock supervision of grave
patients in medical institutions, and presents a self-fulfilling picture of
unhealthiness.
●
Ad-hocism has further increased
under the growing shadow of FLN. While there are no exams for Grades1 and 2 in
both KV and Delhi Government schools, MCD schools have surpassed their already
gross policy of evaluating these kids for the non-existent science and social
studies subjects (at this level) by introducing paper-pencil question papers
for what should be at the most an oral exercise. In line with this pedagogic
mis-understanding, ignoring the fact that policy documents and governments have
targeted the development of 'reading skills' by Grade 3, MCD administration is
showing an increasing emphasis and obsession with identifying reading
tasks/levels from Grade 1 itself! The ghastly imprint of pushing children to
attain 'FLN standards' is plain to see.
Threat to Teachers
●
FLN is tied to producing data for
measuring teachers' (labour) performance and, eventually, influencing their
service conditions, including salaries, reports, promotions etc.
●
On the other hand, the discourse
is used to address and blunt the disaffection/criticism wrt the unemployment
crisis by advancing the narrative of 'low/unemployable skills' of the young
seeking jobs.
●
In terms of its minimalist
conception, especially for students from working class and historically
marginalised backgrounds, it is possible that a section of teachers may agree
with FLN's objectives.
●
With increasing and almost
all-encompassing centralisation of monthly/weekly/daily plans, classroom
activities and practices, time-tables, assessments etc, teachers are feeling an
acute sense of loss of agency and hollowing out of whatever de-facto autonomy
they enjoyed before. Moreover, the continuous, ad-hoc and urgent demands of
departmental orders, including non-academic tasks and data-entry (whose
financial cost, even in schools, are borne by teachers from their pockets and
which extends to post-school hours and holidays), is leading to a feeling of
confusion/identity crisis about their intellectual work and role.
●
FLN poses a serious challenge to
the ethical and professional commitment of teachers, as well as to their legal
fidelity. The obsession with continuously assessing students’ ‘learning levels’
goes hand-in-hand with the pressure on teachers to produce improvements in the
periodic FLN class reports they are forced to submit. This performance pressure
inevitably leads to a situation where admissions of children seen as lagging
behind their grade-specific FLN parameters, are, in violation of the law, either
denied or delayed (wherein they may be asked to come later after getting the
‘learning deficit’ removed/reduced through private tuitions or ‘home support’).
Obviously, these children are seen by some teachers as posing a risk to the FLN
reports of their class. Some of these teachers may even end up showing an
unwillingness, whether implicit or explicit, to take these ‘risky’children in
their respective classes.
●
Even if, for a moment, we were to
accept the empirical grounds on which
the reductionist pedagogy within the FLN project is said to be based
(that 'this is how children actually learn'), as teachers who value their
autonomy and conceive of pedagogy as a healthy though
uncertain/undefined/undefinable mix of art and science, we are unable to agree
to its diktats. Teaching is an aesthetic work. We seek and cherish beauty in
our work. FLN actively thwarts this pursuit and ideal.
●
The policy of creating a species
of Mentor Teachers, both in Delhi Govt and MCD schools, amounts to withdrawing
teachers from classrooms and teaching, and compromising their
comradely/collegial relationships by using them for supervisory and monitoring
duties.
The denigration of Expert/Educationists’ Advise
●
The flourishing of FLN has been
preceded by and accompanied with a denigrating of the disciplinary area of
education and the role of educationists both in terms of policy making and
state's discourse, whether seen in Gujarat (Gunotsav 2009) or Delhi (Chunauti,
2016 and Mission Buniyad 2018).
●
FLN has compromised, co-opted and
subverted the more academically grounded stream of research and work on reading
(eg NCERT’s Barkha series of books) within institutions like the NCERT. On the
other hand, we need to ponder if the primary conception of levels/outcomes was
always destined to fall into that trap.
●
While there is an unending demand
for and throwing around gross and miniscule data in support of FLN, there seems
to be a glaring gap in terms of robust and uncompromised research studies on
the issue.
Defrauding working-class children
●
The FLN discourse has been built
over the seemingly obvious fact of large sections of students struggling to
learn, which is not seen as linked to their socio-economic alienation and
marginalisation, but instead misappropriated to argue for and posit policy
interventions likely to marginalise them further.
●
Time-lined and data-driven
targets, especially to do with a transactional process like teaching-learning,
are, as shown by scholars and research across the world, prone to lead to
exclusion of the weakest, manipulation, fudging, teaching-to-test, compromise
with standards etc. (See Diane Ravitch)
●
The change in the RTE Act Rules in
2017, to bring in ‘outcomes’, can be seen as a precursor to the introduction of
FLN in schools. While this change prepared the ground for FLN, it also marks a
conjoint shift away from the state’s lip-service to the discourse of children’s
rights, state’s accountability and classroom processes, toward teachers’
individual accountability and minimalist ‘outcomes’, mischievously clothed in
the language of guaranteed outputs. This shift thereby ends up in the double
cruelty of punishing children twice over (by compromising the curriculum,
segregating, excluding and eventually failing them) after snatching their
rights. Moreover, it does all this by cleverly absolving the state of all
responsibility except for forcing and manipulating a constant flow of
compromised data as a vindication of its obnoxious policies.
●
In the context of India's
caste-based social system and culture, still much entrenched in schools,
especially in certain parts of the country, even an ostensible learning-level
based segregation (TaRL) among children within same Grades faces the risk of
aiding or leading to or justifying more sinister forms of discrimination and
segregation.
References
A.
From Minimum Levels of Learning at Primary Stage, Report
of the Committee set up by the MHRD (Department of Education), published by the
NCERT, Feb 1991
...large-scale
expansion has resulted in the creation of educational facilities with widely varying quality in terms of
institutional infrastructure, teaching-learning processes as well as the quality of students passing out of
these institutions. The quality variations become more pronounced in certain states, between schools
of rural and urban areas, between schools managed by government and non-government bodies, and
so on. Recognizing the urgent need for
rectifying this anomalous situation with respect to quality, the
National Policy on Education 1986 calls
for paying immediate attention to (i) improving the unattractive school
environment, the unsatisfactory
condition of buildings and inadequacy of instructional material; and (ii)
laying down minimum levels of learning
that all children completing different stages of education should achieve. Keeping this policy directive
in view, the Report of the Working Group on Early Childhood and Elementary Education Set up for
Formulation of Eighth Five Year Plan states:
The targets need to be spelt out not only in terms of participation, but
also in terms of quality and outcomes.
During the Eighth Plan, it should be our aim to bring about a substantial
improvement in quality of education
through improved infrastructure, improved teacher education, and substantial improvement in quality and
quantity of learning materials. In terms of outcomes it shall have to be ensured that minimum levels
of learning are laid down with reference to the
conclusion of primary and upper primary stages and an appropriate
evaluation system created to ensure
achievement at least of the prescribed levels of learning.
1.2
In fact, significant efforts towards specification of Minimum Levels of
Learning (MLLs) had already been made at
the NCERT during 1978 in connection with the UNICEF-assisted projects on 'Primary Education Curriculum
Renewal' and 'Developmental Activities in
Community Education and Participation'. As part of these projects, a
'Minimum Learning Continuum' was drawn
indicating the learning outcomes expected to be achieved by all children completing Classes II, III, IV and V. The
Primary Education Curriculum Renewal Project was evaluated in 1984 using a set of achievement
tests developed for all the primary classes based on the competencies specified in the Minimum
Learning Continuum. Utilizing the empirical
evidences collected through this evaluation study and following the
National Policy on Education 1986, the NCERT
prepared another document entitled, 'Minimum Levels of Learning at the Primary Stage'.
1.3
In the context of these exercises and the specifications made by the Eighth
Plan Working Group, the Department of
Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development organized a seminar in December 1989 on the theme, 'Basic
Learning Needs and Levels of Attainment'.
Various issues related to basic learning needs of the children at the
primary stage, the need for specifying
minimum levels of learning and creation of appropriate mechanisms for
assessment of learner attainment were
discussed during the seminar. On the issue of laying down minimum levels of learning the seminar recommended
for initiating concrete efforts at the national level.
2. Committee on MLL: Composition and Terms of
Reference
Against
this background, the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India set up the
present committee vide order No. 74/3/89- Desk(TE) dated 5 January 1990.
2.1 Terms of Reference
The
terms of reference of the committee were as under:
1.
Draw up minimum levels of learning for Classes III and V.
2.
Recommend a procedure for comprehensive learner evaluation and assessment. 3. Look into the non-cognitive areas of
learning and suggest concrete ways in which teaching in these areas can be improved. The committee
was further informed that the terms of reference related to both formal and non-formal systems
of education. (Chapter 1, Introduction,
Pages 1, 2)
The
Terms of Reference were limited to setting levels in Language, Mathematics and
EVS for grades 3 and 5, but the committee went on to do so for all five grades!
Chapter
2, Minimum Levels of Learning: Some Important Features, advances concerns of
equalising standards and defining them in terms of competencies;
accountability, school improvement, low learning levels and huge number of
dropouts, the need to ensure that they (the dropouts) are able to function as
useful adults etc, and overload of content. It suggests the following as
solutions: lightening the curriculum, contextualisation outside of textbooks,
ensuring sustainable comprehension and skills, and equalising mastery learning
across students.
B
ASER
tool used for baseline assessment in the Delhi Govt's Chunauti program (2016)
and the role of Pratham, Room to Read etc in the development of 'alternative
textbooks' and workbooks under the SCERT.
C.
The NCF-FS 2022 has a separate Chapter on Language
(Chapter 3: Approach to Language Education and Literacy) but none for Maths.
D.
Some of us were witness to the Constitution Club (Delhi)
programme held in 2012/13 where Karthik Muralidharan presented the summary of a
research on 'school choice/vouchers' carried out in the then Andhra Pradesh.
Montek Singh Ahluwalia, then Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission,
spoke in agreement with the conclusions of the report (favoring withdrawal of
the state from public schooling) and Rukmini Bannerjee, rather presciently,
(and confidently!) as it turned out, argued for dismissing subject areas like
EVS from the primary grades.
E.
'The first step is measurement, for whatever cannot be
measured cannot be accounted for.' (Keeping tabs on carbon with an accounting
system, Amar Patnaik and Rjesh Kasturirangan, Editorial Page, The Hindu, Oct 5,
2023)
F.
FLN has found a place in the latest G20 (Delhi)
declaration. It is articulated in terms of the SDGs and confirms our fears and
criticism that it is not conceived on educational grounds.
G.
From the June 2015 zero draft of the outcome document for
the UN summit (Sep 2015) to adopt the post-2015 Development Agenda: '....to
facilitate preparations for the next inter-governmental negotiations...ensuring
education [and] access to learning that helps them acquire the knowledge and
skills needed to exploit opportunities and to participate fully in society.'
[Education conceived not for transformation but as a self-centred, status-quo
enabling project.] The document makes clear that the implementation of the
agenda 'will require both public and private, domestic and international
[agencies]...[and] Business, the private sector and philanthropic organisations
will feature prominently..' It commits to multilateral trading system for the
realisation of the new Agenda and resolves that 'Governments and public
institutions will work closely with national parliaments, local authorities,
international institutions, business and the private sector, civil society,
academia, philanhropic organisations, voluntary groups and others..' [Notice
the order of those identified and the clear absence of Unions, Professional
bodies etc. Also, the superfluous and giveaway suggestion that governments work
with parliaments and local bodies, whereas they are anyway mandated to do so!]
Finally, the tellingly directive statement that 'SDGs have Targets...elaborated
through indicators..focused on measurable outcomes.' Thus, Point 6 of Goal 4
which earlier said: 'By 2030, ensure that all youth and at least X% of adults,
both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy', in the latter Section of
Targets, under Means of Implementation, is ominously but inevitably proposed to
be revised to: 'By 2030, ensure that all youth and adults, both men and women,
reach a proficiency level in literacy and numeracy sufficient to fully
participate in society.'
H.
The Development Team for Vidyarambh, Workbook for School
Preparedness to strengthen FLN skills, includes Room to Read India Trust,
Pratham and Ahavan Trust. Its stated objective is 'to support pre-literacy and
pre-numeracy skills...aligned with NEP and NIPUN Bharat's 3 goals...children
maintain good health and well being, are effective communicators and involved
learners, and connect with their environment.'
I.
Pratham/ASER (based on Pratham's/ASER's reports, websites
etc)
Pratham was set up in 1996 with a focus on ensuring that
children acquire basic skills in reading and arithmetic. They soon developed a
tool for assessing children's 'learning levels.' This was a single sheet of
paper with 4 levels of text - letters, simple and common words, a short 4-line
para with easy sentences and a longer (Grade 2) text with more complex
vocabulary. Arithmetic tool was based on Grade 3/4 level operations. By 2004, while
enrollment had been universalised [!], there was no information on the outcomes
of primary education. Pratham's experience was negative on this. ASER was set
up in 2005 with the objective of finding out whether children were learning and
policies and programmes were working. It seems that the Maths assessment tool
was created later, but before 2005 when the first survey was carried out. ASER
Center set up in 2008, for providing timely data on educational outcomes,
capacity building wrt monitoring and evaluation, and empirically grounded
advocacy. 2015 saw a break after 10 annual ASER reports. Still claimed to be
providing the only data on foundational learning levels, and these said to be
not improving. Pratham has been critical of the 'automatic pass' policy. It was
also critical of the UPA government's lack of concern with outcomes. It was
critical of earlier policies, claiming that they were not based on
data/evidence. On the other hand, some of its earliest work and proposed
solutions included 'remedial teaching' by 'local volunteers' (Teaching at the
Right Level, TaRL, which was, in turn, criticised for pushing 'unqualified',
'untrained' and 'lowly paid' youth into classrooms). In spite of this position
critical of the policies of the then ruling dispensation, by 2012, not only had
ASER been cited in the Economic Survey of India, Approach Paper to the 11th
FYP, Education Chapter of the 12th FYP, but its reports were also released by
the MHRD Minister himself! Unsurprisingly, the reports' findings continued to
'shock the nation'. There are echoes of the buildup to the USA's NCLB Act
(2001) here.
J.
Meanwhile, the scope and frequency of the National
Achievement Survey (NAS, begun, under the NCERT, in 2001, initially limited to
Grades 3, 5 and 8, but later extended to 10 too) has been slowly increasing at
the national level. Some states have instituted their own SLASs. These
were/have been school-based assessment surveys that focused primarily on
grade-level content in Maths (Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry), Language
(Language Elements, Reading Comprehension, Writing) and EVS (Social Studies,
Science). The 2010 report used the terms 'learning achievement' and 'learning
levels'. The narrative has been converging with that of ASER, assuming a
saturation with access, underlining the need to assess the health of the
government education system and thereby to feed into policies and
interventions.
K.
Foundational Literacy and Numeracy Report -2nd edition
(from a PIB, Delhi, release)
The report was released by Dr. Bibek Debroy, Chairman EAC
to the PM, at #TheIndiaDialog organised by Institute for Competitiveness and
US-Asia Technology Management Centre, Stanford University, on 23/24 February,
2023. It focuses on language. [Mathematics missing again!] A special section
covers insights into states/UTs to assess learning outcomes on the NAS and
Foundational Learning Study (FLS) 2022. A section explicitly focuses on the
numerous initiatives at the national and state level in collaboration with
public-private organisations, demonstrating their efforts in achieving
foundational learning goals as outlined in NIPUN. The report is said to be a
benchmark for achieving universal foundational learning by 2026-27. It
recommends various assessments pertaining to phonology, vocabulary/lexicon and
syntax (said to be the linguistic system) and symbols and mapping principles (said
to be the orthographic system), and the writing mechanism. It emphasises data
monitoring at a disaggregated level for FLN outcomes to be integrated into the
system. The authors of the report are: Amit Kapoor (Chair, Institute for
Competitiveness), Natalia Chakma (Researcher, ditto) and Sheen Zutshi (Research
Manager, ditto). [Institute for Competitiveness, India 'is the Indian knot in
the global network of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard
Business School...based on the body of research and knowledge as pioneered over
the last 25 years by Prof Michael Porter at the Institute.'] Panelists included
Karen Klimowski (Deputy India Mission Director, USAID), Pawan Sain (Joint-Sec,
EAC-PM), Arundhati Gupta (Founder and CEO, Mentor Together), Asha Jadeja
(Founder, Motwani Jadeja Foundation) and the discussion was chaired by Geetha
Murali (CEO, Room to Read). Of course, academic institutions and academicians
are conspicuously absent from these lists. Moreover, the following excerpt from
the Keynote address delivered by Geetha Murali is instructive for the linkages
it presents and supports between the 'Indian languages' and the bottom-up
approach of FLN which tends to align with memorisation and rote practice even
at the cost of meaningfulness: 'The other nuances of the Indian context
important to be kept in mind is the automaticity required at both the Akshara
and the text level as the Indian languages are Akshara based scripts. So, as
you are developing curriculum, the phonological awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, comprehension have to be split out into lessons that are taught
appropriately without overloading children.'
L.
EFA, MDGs, SDGs and Learning Outcomes
From EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015, 'Education for All
2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges'
'Goal 6 Quality of education: Improving all aspects of the
quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognised and
measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy,
numeracy and essential life skills. In 1990, the World Declaration on Education
for All [EFA] committed countries to improving quality of education. The
declaration identified quality as a prerequisite for achieving the fundamental
goal of equity....While many countries have made impressive gains in access to
education since Dakar, improvement in quality has not always kept pace. A
discernible shift in emphasis towards quality and learning is likely to become
more central to the post-2015 global framework, since, as the 2013/14 EFA
Global Monitoring Report [GMR] showed, 250 million children have not had the
chance to learn the basics - and 130 million of them have spent at least four
years in school....[The chapter] provides an overview of the role of national,
regional and international assessments in better monitoring of education
quality as measured by learning outcomes. The chapter then covers four areas
key to improving quality: teachers, textbooks and other instructional materials
and facilities, teaching and learning processes, and governance [including both
decentralisation and private schooling],' (p 189) [While some areas have gained
salience, others have received a mixed or silent response, but
'decentralisation' has definitely been betrayed in favour of an increasing, even
suffocating centralisation.]
'To be used successfully, targets need to be specific,
measurable, realistic and relevant.' (Chapter 9, p 283)
'The proposed education SDG and targets are considerably
broader than the corresponding MDGs with their narrow focus on primary
education completion and gender parity. The SDG targets more closely reflect
the holistic vision of the EFA movement, which recognised that all levels of
education were interrelated...the proposed SDG targets are more oriented to
outcomes.' (p 284-285)
'If targets cannot be adequately measured now or in the
foreseeable future, accountability is threatened. Indeed, the use of the term
'targets' implies that the SDG agenda emphasises quantitative measurement.' (p
286) [Though, the two-para sub-section is titled 'Some targets are not
measurable'.]
'It is remarkable that there is no overall finance
target.' (p 290)
SDG 4.1.1 is marked as an improvement on MDG which focused
on inputs and access. It sets up outcome indicators at 3 levels in Maths and
Reading (later changed to numeracy and literacy) - early primary (2/3), primary
(5) and lower secondary (8). The UNESCO-Institute of Statistics (UIS) is the
custodian agency for most of the SDG 4 global indicators, while OECD is the
partner agency.
The UIS laments that either national level assessment data
is non-existent or, where it does exist to some extent, is fragmented. UIS was
said to be preparing a Global Framework for reading and Maths and developing
approaches for equating or linking the data for certain national assessments to
this framework. It is interesting that while even the USA and New Zealand which
do have such national level indicators/data do so for a lower secondary stage
and the EU does so at early youth level, yet the criticism is directed at many
other countries, especially from sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for not
having such data! [There is more to it than meets the eye. Is it about the
investors' need to know about the 'knowledge/skill' levels of the prospective
labour force?]
M.
Foundational Learning Study (FLS) 2022
The study was carried out in March 2022, under the NIPUN
Bharat program. It covered 20 languages, 86,000 Grade 3 students from 10,000
schools. The core team included statisticians and scientists. It had 4 objectives:
to assess LOs, set baseline for NIPUN, set Benchmark and produce data to report
on SDG 4.1.1 indicators. Assessment was done at 4 levels, as per the 'Global
Proficiency Levels' - below partially meets, partially meets, meets, exceeds.
The report claims that 'foundational literacy skills including oral language
comprehension, phonological awareness, decoding, reading comprehension, oral
reading fluency with comprehension, were assessed as part of assessment. For
foundational numeracy, number identification and comparison, number operations,
multiplication and division facts, measurement, fraction, patterns and data
handling are included.' Nevertheless, the presentation of data seems to be
limited to CWPM and RCQ. Interestingly, maximum schools and students in the
study were English medium: 40% and 43%, respectively! [Perhaps, something to do
with the need to 'report progress on the SDG targets'!] English, Hindi and Urdu
cover nearly 655 of schools and 71% of students in the study, leaving barely a third
to the rest of the 17 languages. Confirming the trend of the privileging of
language over Maths in these policies and documents, 4 out of the 5
Bench-marking workshops in Literacy and Numeracy conducted in the process of
preparing the study were devoted to the former.
From Annexure 1 to the FLS report
The study focused on 'Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) with
Reading Comprehension of class 3 children along with other dimensions of
foundational learning.' The Task given was: 'reading aloud a short story of 60-70
grade level appropriate words and answering a total of 5 retrieved and
inference based questions from the story.' As per NIPUN, class 3 children
'should be able to read at least 60 words per minute correctly and with
comprehension depending on the language and with correct pronunciation from an
age appropriate unknown text.' [There is a hint of a contradiction here. The
data itself may be revealing on this.]
The study is part of the 'Procedure of Policy Linking
administered for setting global benchmarks in reading/language/literacy and
maths/numeracy at grades 1-9 - for reporting on SDG 4.1.1...for specifying
proportions at 2/3-5-8 having a minimum proficiency level in reading and maths,
by sex.' [A frank acceptance.] Under the section Global Proficiency Framework
(GPF) and Setting Global Benchmarks, it lays out 4 Global Proficiency Levels
(see above) and detailed Global Proficiency Descriptors (GPDs) for each level -
domains, constructs, sub-constructs and knowledge and skills by grade, subject
and level. [Is this linked with how schools are being made to segregate
students and provide reports as per 'levels'?]
Sections of Annexure 3 on Maths, especially pages
subtitled Global Proficiency for Mathematics: Grade 1 to 9, read like a
directive exercise/task set by statisticians and economists to people in
education!
N.
From the EFA GMR 2015
'The Dakar Framework, by placing quality at the heart of
EFA, emphasises the need for effective strategies to assess and monitor
knowledge and skills and demonstrate measurable learning outcomes.' (p 190)
[The Dakar Conference was held on 26-28 April 2000 and included, apart from
government representatives, agencies like the UNESCO, WB, ADB etc.]
'In the past 25 years, the number of national assessments
has grown sharply, increasing from 12 in 1990 to 101 in 2013 [Benavot and
Koseleci, 2015].' (p 190)
'National assessments focus more on grades 4-6 than grades
1-3 and 7-9....National assessments are predominantly curriculum-based and
subject-oriented. Language [100%] and mathematics [98%] are by far the
predominant subjects. More than half the countries that conducted assessments
between 2000 and 2013 assessed learning outcomes in science, almost two-fifths
[36%] in the social sciences, 33% in foreign languages and 20% in other
subjects...' (p 191)
'Increasing use of assessments is supported by a wider movement
towards evidence-informed policy and practice in education and in other fields.
(Wiseman, 2010)' (p 191)
Refers to ASER's work in throwing light on basic skills
and, interestingly, apart from India, gives the example of Pakistan as well.
'USAID, with the support of UNICEF, the World Bank and
several bilateral donors, promotes early grade reading assessments (EGRAs) and
early grade mathematics assessments (EGMAs).' (p 192) Refers to more than 60
EGRAs and 20 EGMAs, thereby again proving the tilt in favour of reading over
maths!
'In the early 2000s, curriculum was content-driven, often
criticised as too theoretical, out of date and overloaded. After Dakar, a shift
in education policies towards the development of competencies and skills was
pervasive. (Westbrook et al, 2013)' (p 207)
The report then lists private school advantages (in terms
of learning outcomes), but recognises its limits and disadvantages to equality,
and underlines that public school reform may not be enough to attract a broader
demographic without efforts to improve perceptions of public schooling as well.
(p 216) [A lesson seemingly well-learnt in India!]
'As the scientific reliability and validity of national
assessments vary greatly, cross-country comparisons should be taken with care.
Nevertheless, national assessments provide country-wide information about an
array of learning outcomes according to nationally defined standards and
pinpoint areas for government attention and policy intervention.' (p 304)
The tabulation of national learning assessments by country
and region throws up the following features: a) National Assessments all over
the world, with a few exceptions, have the tendency to limit themselves to
particular and minimalist areas of the curriculum - language and maths. b)
North America and Western Europe show no example of a national learning
assessment under the UNICEF/UNESCO/WB! c) Most UNICEF/UNESCO assessments
focused on language/literacy, numeracy and life skills. d) Most WB-supported
assessments focused on language and mathematics. e) Most countries which do
assess on sciences, social studies/sciences etc do it not under the aegis of
the WB.
O.
In November 2018, DCPCR signed an MoU with QCI (a body set
up under the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of
Commerce and Industry) to assess and evaluate schools in Delhi.
Conclusion/Endnote
●
Delhi Government's Chunauti (2016)
and Mission Buniyad (2018) precede NEP but emphasise upon and use the FLN
narrative without using the term explicitly. Thus, they stand as pre-avatars of
FLN and can also be used to verify the worst (or the best!) possibilities
inherent in it.
●
The positing of targets, including
aggregate level learning/outcome demands, is contrary to some of the
better-informed policy formulations (for example, Every child learns at their
own pace..., Section 4.1, Page 83, Principles of Pedagogy, NCFS 2022).
●
This contradiction is further seen
when lofty-sounding Aims are reduced to Compromised Goals which are further
reduced to Objectified Competencies and finally made to fit into Mundane
Learning Outcomes. (NCF-FS 2022, Page 51)
●
Many primary schools are made to run Nursery/KG classes
without trained or sufficient number of teachers, leave alone support staff
(Aayas etc) for these grades.
●
Actual teaching time is going down drastically in schools,
thanks to teachers tasked with other concerns, made to fulfill governments'
unending agendas, interference of other departments and private organisations
(through their programs) etc. Moreover, the personnel and technology based
surveillance and supervision is amounting to a breathing down the teacher's
neck, thereby ensuring that no meaningful teaching-learning/academic process
takes place in classrooms. Timely inspections, which were perhaps always bureaucratic,
have been compounded with a continuous data collection and report submitting
regimen, creating physical fatigue, acute anxiety and a sense of burn-out among
teachers. All this is obviously detrimental to teachers' mental health,
schools' environment and education.
●
The increasing push to digitalise education, including in
its governance and delivery/ content, has enabled the administrative control
and surveillance inherent in and required under FLN. Whether through whatsapp
or mail, it has become easier, on the one hand, to demand instant data and
compliance, and, on the other, to put schools and teachers under a constant,
suffocating and humiliating leash.
● Taken at its face value, FLN suffers from very low(ly) ambitions,
especially for a National Policy. There can be no compromise with academic
rigour, the rights of children and the professional dignity of teachers.
●
We submit that this education and economic system cannot
promise a flourishing future to even those who are seen to be excelling in
terms of the FLN parameters. In this sense, it is a red herring. On the other
hand, our long and varied experience in schools and with students and
communities across the years shows that, while nutrition and
culturally/educationally nourishing environment in early years of a child
certainly aids their later growth, the fear-mongering warnings about a
point-of-no-return being reached by Grade 2/3 or 80/90% brain development
occurring by age 3/5 are not validated by how children continue to show surprising
and remarkable growth in interest and acumen in the years beyond. There is
diversity in how and when children develop their interests and intellectual
prowess. It is not a problem or a thing to be afraid of.
●
The experience with high sounding and seemingly
democratic, even sincere, concerns to do with securing equality in
outcomes/results across children from diverse and disparate backgrounds has
proven that it is, at best, a double-edged sword, and, at worst, likely to be
co-opted and misused by precisely those forces intent on diluting standards,
especially for the education of the marginalised.
●
The success that the narrative of 'a learning crisis' and
'ensuring measurable learning outcomes' has achieved in terms of shaping
policies and discourse is a testimony not only to the continuous, though no
doubt networked and lubricated, work done by its partisan agencies, but also to
our failure to reach out to the people, especially those directly affected, and
lack of work in this area within academia.
●
We consider providing extra teaching time and resources to
children requiring such support a pedagogically welcome and essential strategy.
But segregation in the name of ability-grouping cannot be defended.
●
We must look for and create alternative possibilities of
meaningful and liberating education. Gijubhai's, Paulo Freire's and Sylvia
Ashton-Warner's work can be an inspiration. In terms of textbooks, Eklavya's
and post-NCF-2005 NCERT texts are good examples.
●
We believe that the FLN-driven policy is destined to fail,
but it will cause immense loss and harm to students from the working classes
and marginalised sections if it is not stopped at the earliest.
