A string of failures: roadblocks, struggles and politics

We have been through a long list of failures. More accurately, through situations where curricular interventions that we tried to mainstream for state governments were overturned. This could be for many reasons that we would discuss later. However, here it may suffice to say that we met more devils than what one could contemplate. ‘We’ here implies the Eklavya social science group that was working with other subject groups, organizations, and university resource persons for initiatives taken by various state governments.

This is a personal account. My colleagues and friends from SCERTs may well view this in a different light. Just as a rider, one may add that there were many achievements and learnings. The survival of some of the initiatives over long periods, sometimes for more than a decade, are significant. This essay does not discuss the achievements though, but the tangible roadblocks and social attitudes that have stifled the spread of these ideas. The focus of this piece is on failures and what didn’t work.

The roadblock for Madhya Pradesh

Our first roadblock was after 1995, when we began discussions for the expansion of the social science program in Madhya Pradesh (MP). We had been working in eight schools across three districts for over a decade. The idea was that micro trials in ordinary schools would evolve a model for macro expansion for the state. The textbooks had been revised after extensive feedback from teachers and resource persons. Teacher training processes had also evolved.

Most importantly, we had successfully experimented with an open book system, aligned with curricular objectives for social science. We had carried this on for the Board examination for class 8 at MP. In terms of proof of concept for the program, we had demonstrated the efficacy. It should be appreciated that the state government, through SCERT, collaborated in providing the freedom to change materials, teacher training process and assessment. The coming together of these three processes was envisaged to lead to changes at the classroom level. This liberal space for experimentation appears unimaginable today.

The senior bureaucrats then asked for an evaluation study. We had begun this, culminating later as a report and then as a book edited by Poonam Batra. There was another question. How does one prepare the ground for acceptance of an innovative program by a larger region and community of teachers?

The government suggested that the proposal for the new initiative should come from Zila Panchayat Samitis. Following this, we took up meetings in earnest. We met with people across the board. We had meetings with teachers, administrators, elected representatives, and intellectuals. We also felt this would prepare the ground and some ‘middle’ path would emerge.

What was unsaid at the government level (but an undercurrent that one could feel) was that social science is controversial, and the government shouldn’t get caught in some crossfire. “Let us expand primary school first and we’ll come to this later,” was the bureaucratic response. This appeared fair for that time, since we were collectively involved in the primary school initiative. However, it was also a way to postpone taking a call on the expansion for social sciences.

The proof of concept (that the program works on the field, within government schools and structures) took us so far but no further. My senior colleagues from the science program were only smiling. They were also stuck at a similar stage. This was after having worked out the program, HSTP, over 800 schools, seeding these ideas across 13 districts and with a positive evaluation report from MHRD.

By 2000 however, there were changes, both at the bureaucratic and political levels. At a bureaucratic level, from the earlier engaging and sympathetic bureaucracy, there was a clear indication from some that, “Government schools can’t be improved.” The government had deregulated the school act. Almost anyone could start a private school in a couple of rooms. “You are well-intentioned but wasting your time,” was an advice from a very senior bureaucrat.

The other indication was that governments desire their own flagship programs. They do not wish to be identified with civil society initiatives. At a political level, both the major parties now stood in opposition – one openly and the other internally. The same Zila Panchayat Samitis that we were encouraged to interact with, were now used against us. Motivated resolutions were passed there that the community did not desire these innovative programs developed by Eklavya.

Supported through this manufactured dissent, the topmost bureaucrats now argued that Eklavya enjoyed an ‘illegitimate’ space within government structures. All our programs were closed by Government of MP in 2002. Even when some scientists argued that the state government should continue the programs on its own, without Eklavya, there was no response. Proof of concept was considered irrelevant. The detailed circumstances leading to this can be read in our report, “New beginnings”. Others have also commented on this (Batra 2015).

A question is often asked, “Were we naïve to think that governments would expand curricular programs if provided with proof of concept, like farm trials for agriculture?” Does the trajectory operate from micro to macro, as we had visualized in our proposals?

In one sense, we knew that expansion is a political exercise. Yet, to maintain neutrality as collaborators, we shied away from direct political engagement. Maybe we were unsure, or not capable, of engaging with political parties and their functionaries. At the same time, this was the best use of the negotiated liberal spaces that civil society groups had in the 1980s. The challenge of those times was to develop alternative development programs not only in education but also in other domains such as watershed development and community health.

The social science program had been worked out on the ground in collaboration with the state government for ordinary schools. This opportunity gave the ideas a solid base, a democratic possibility of quality education for all, and probably a life that was much larger than the initial group.

Faced with a limbo, we started moving out and also began explorations for classes 9 and 10. This was necessary, since in our system classes 6 to 10 constitute the phase of general education in all subjects. For many years the question, “What is the link to high school?” had been posed to the science program.

This was the background to a genuine debate that innovative programs emphasize process elements enhancing the capacity to learn, but they tend to ignore “essential subject knowledge” (NCERT 1991).

Among other questions often posed to us by elected representatives were, “Are these watered down programs for rural or marginalized regions?” Questions of this nature and a public dialogue had been initiated through our meetings with the Zila Panchayat Samitis. This initial work for classes 9 and 10 was very useful later, where the framework for state governments was clearly for alternative textbooks for classes 6 to 10.

Rajasthan and Pokharan

While the state government was ignoring the expansion in MP, we had the opportunity to work with an initiative in Rajasthan, called Lok Jumbish. This was a semi-autonomous body set up by Government of Rajasthan (GoR), under the leadership of Anil Bordia. The goal was to intervene in selected blocks all over Rajasthan for improving school education. The intervention was at the level of infrastructure, community engagement and curricular materials.

We were part of the teams working on alternative curricular materials. The trial block was Pisangun of Ajmer district. We brought out the class 6 social science book with fresh case studies from various districts of Rajasthan. We were in the process of completing the class 7 textbook, when Pokharan took place.

This nuclear test in 1998 in Pokharan immediately set up a strong reaction from the Swedish government. Their development agency, SIDA, the main funder for Lok Jumbish, withdrew the support. The antiBordia camp within the state government took this opportunity and began the winding down of Lok Jumbish. We were caught in the crossfire. We produced case studies detailing our efforts at contextualization for the state. These were created in collaboration with spirited resource persons from universities in Rajasthan. However, these were ignored.

The new textbooks were termed as “plagiarizing the MP textbooks” by the accountants. Our funds were held up. We entered the long loop line of negotiating with officialdom. Meanwhile, the SCERT at Udiapur had felt sidelined by Lok Jumbish in the curricular process. This governmental body didn’t even consider adapting or using any of the textbook materials that various teams had created, designed and tested in the trial block. They were simply buried.

The textbooks were buried. But we learnt what it means to contextualize. I remember a question posed by a scholar at IDS, Jaipur. “You are trialing at Pisangun block. But what is your universe?” This experience stood us in good measure for more than a decade (Paliwal and Subramaniam, 2006).

Outsiders at Assam

Around the same time, probably in 2001, we were invited by Government of Assam (GoA). We were asked to work with the SCERT to develop new textbooks for their middle schools. We took this up with enthusiasm and began meeting various resource people at Guwahati University. The response was very encouraging. However, a comment in one meeting couldn’t escape our notice. During a discussion, one of the professors said, “But in India they think differently from us…” I don’t remember the context, but his words stuck. We were ‘outsiders,’ from ‘India’.

The SCERT here was quite active. It was prepared to undertake the required field studies. We could discuss most issues. However, some aspects were sensitive. When it came to Assam’s history, often myths were placed as sacrosanct. The issue of migrants was very touchy. Internal conflicts within the state were also rampant.

A group of teachers on a field visit for a case study of a hill region were turned back by the locals, who said, “We don’t allow outsiders.” They were shocked and explained that they were government schoolteachers from a different area. However, it didn’t help.

We completed the class 5 textbook. We had begun working on class 6, when we were asked to pack up. There were changes at the level of upper bureaucracy, and they were closing this initiative. A section in the ruling political group, viewed this whole effort as done by outsiders. We hadn’t contemplated that cultural divides among even well-intentioned people would be so strong. The professor’s chance remark rang true.

Chhattisgarh: a long innings

We didn’t expect our engagement at Chhattisgarh (CG) to be a long one when we started work on the textbooks in 2004. This was the result of a series of unlikely events. The SCERT Director then was a very capable administrator. He was an officer deputed from the forest department, with a deep interest in education.

In his quiet way, he invited various groups to come together and work with the faculty and teachers at CG. He would listen to suggestions from all quarters. However, he was also able to keep out petty politics that could derail processes. He helped set up mixed teams. These included members from civil society groups, SCERT faculty, teachers, and some university faculty.

There was also an enthusiasm to do something for the identity of the state. Our case studies for geography, economics and history were an opportunity for teachers to contribute effectively. This also bound us all as a group representing social sciences. In a quiet manner, we were able to introduce processes that had not been possible elsewhere. The textbooks went through a trial process for two years in selected schools across various regions. This was a seeding process before the state level expansion. This worked out to a reasonable extent.

The process of teacher training needs meticulous planning and organization. We did have a reasonable team of teachers as the state resource group. But the plan to take this to every district or block did not materialize. Changes at the helm of SCERT and the bureaucracy took away the momentum.

The shortcut adopted almost everywhere is the circulation of training modules. This is not a substitute for actual dialogue on the perspective of the new textbooks. Classroom processes don’t change unless this human element is given space. On hindsight, we should focus on this first, and build a conducive climate and teachers’ groups. Then textbooks could be developed as a follow up. Rather than textbooks leading the change, teacher dialogues should create the ground first.

Unlike other situations, textbooks for middle schools in CG were used for more than a decade. However, the academic resource group was hardly consulted once they were used across the state. There is a dilemma here. The CG SCERT, unlike in MP, did take ownership as desired and conducted the program on its own. Textbooks for elementary education classes were put in place.

However, SCERTs are often uncomfortable in exercises of review and revision of textbooks. Their reluctance stems from the experience that university academics do reviews and offer advice. However, the latter seldom see them through the entire process of revision. Textbooks are sensitive subjects. Hence, SCERTs tend to rely on a small set of identified teachers and stick to minor changes.

These textbooks at CG became convoluted later because of the processes set by NCERT around 2018. Their learning outcomes initiative may appear well-intentioned. However, it took on a mechanical form. This was because for testing, NCERT started using content-specific questions rather than a skill-based design. This was clearly pushing uniformity in content through the back door. Textbooks for the states that did not cover specific content would be at a disadvantage. More abstract understanding of learning outcomes as a set of desired skills and the ability to handle abstract concepts was given the bypass. NCERT clearly lacks the vision of a federal structure to allow and enhance a plurality of text materials.

The bureaucracy clearly saw this signal. It did not want to be pulled up for low scores. It either changed to using NCERT textbooks fully or modified them accordingly. The teachers at CG put up a brave front. We were not invited but received informal phone calls from concerned teachers. The geography section was replaced by the ill-informed and outmoded NCERT content.

However, the case studies relevant to CG were retained. In the drive to reduce load, many chapters were merged. Contextualization for the state took a back seat.

The textbooks for middle school in this remixed form remain to date. The ownership remains with the SCERT. The initiative survives changes in government because SCERT took the lead and also set the agenda. The crucial factor, as pointed out by a colleague, is that the new textbooks were for all subjects and developed with the involvement of mixed and diverse groups.

The CG SCERT was able to manage a diverse group of people drawn from Eklavya, Vidya Bhavan, Digantar, Azim Premji Foundation, and also resource persons from Ravi Shankar University, Delhi University (DU), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Azim Premji University (APU) and Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). There were negotiations and suggestions and an open mind. But it also ignored many elements that one might consider crucial.

We were later invited to work on classes 9 and 10 after the responsibility for curriculum for high school was shifted to SCERT from the Board. Through this initial process, the CG SCERT had developed a trust that they could seek help from resource groups and university people. The CG SCERT was responding both to the pressure and opportunities of its time. It had the leadership to carry out macro changes with a clear mandate to complete the agenda for the state. These macro decisions were influenced by various considerations, some pertaining to the state and some coming from the center.

Macro initiatives follow policy decisions that cover specific and limited segments. Ground level changes at the school or classroom demand synergy and dialogues with teachers and the confidence of the local school administration. It also assumes a degree of reasonable functioning of the schools. These are often missing. Hence you don’t see results at the classroom level.

Andhra Pradesh-Telangana: “Let there be no distraction”

In 2010, the SCERT of undivided Andhra Pradesh initiated an ambitious program to develop their own curricular materials. This came out of the chaos of using NCERT textbooks for English medium sections and state textbooks for the Telugu sections in selected government schools.

When we began, there were two groups within the SCERT and the set of selected teachers. One was dynamic with exposure to pedagogical change. The other wished to maintain the status quo. In an early meeting on syllabus and methodology, one of the SCERT staff members grew upset. He interjected in our discussion saying, “Sir, let there be no distraction.”

He then proceeded to distribute plain white sheets of paper to all the teachers, saying that he wants the syllabus and chapter outline completed that very day. And the groups would then begin writing the chapter assigned to them from the next day. This was the traditional method. It stands to the credit of the other group that they negotiated these conflicts. We were able to experiment with a new thematic approach. This was much appreciated later.

Here again, the overall teacher group was very active. It had the additional advantage of being able to read alternative materials or articles in English. The discussions were conducted in a multilingual frame. We had the support of active resource persons form Osmania University, Hyderabad Central University and APU. Like in CG, the reform process was for all subjects, from class 1 to 10. Mixed teams drawing from many groups were formed.

The SCERT followed the rule book for approval of materials. It ensured a trial phase. It also gave time for discussions on sensitive issues with the teacher group. It devised an academic standards outline and a chapter schedule for the schools as well. This groundwork was very creditable, as documented in a presentation by Upender Reddy.

There was a strong and committed teacher resource group. However, the process of teacher dialogues ran out of steam. The plan was to form district level teams and then conduct workshops for teachers at the mandal or block level. Compared to other SCERTs, they were best placed to do so. Teacher dialogues and orientations at the state level must face the challenge of scale. While we were not in favor of a cascading model, one or two steps become inevitable. The idea was to go further from the state team to the district level teams, and may be the block level.

From our previous experience in MP, we realized that discussions on perspective are crucial to build confidence and trust. Issues of content and pedagogy emerge in a healthy way when the perspective has been discussed and some of the chapters are gone through in detail. In Telangana, the teachers were quite prepared and motivated to take up the challenge of district and block level workshops.

Some workshops were held. However, this was not a priority for the SCERT. Therefore, it lacked serious planning and lost its momentum. This was a rare opportunity that was missed. The teachers conducted the workshops, but with no resource person support. Nor was the essential kit supplied to the schools. No follow-ups were planned.

The lesson was clear again. Teacher dialogues must take place in tandem with textbook development. Teachers are always in a dual role. The first one is as bearers of given textbook materials to be transacted. The second role is that of autonomous persons engaged with teaching and learning in the classroom. We must move some steps toward thinking of teachers as people with their own minds and engage with them. We must not treat them as mini-bureaucrats responsible for following the given textbooks.

After the formation of Telangana, there was some revision of materials. These textbooks for classes 6 to 10 were taught for a decade in both the states before new developments intervened. Government of AP, around 2020, decided on English medium for all government schools. Hence, it introduced NCERT textbooks form class 8 onward. They also changed chapters totally for classes 6 and 7, bringing out new bilingual textbooks. That was the end of the story for AP.

Telangana continues with the textbooks. It was able to respond to critiques questioning the portrayal of the country in some of the chapters through a process that was open and transparent.

In AP and Telangana, the resource group was able to suggest a new format for the Board examination at the class 10 level. This would move a few points toward higher order skills and test for reasoning, comparing, extrapolation and articulation of ideas. Surprisingly this has sustained, and was followed with some rigor for the first five years.

A similar move at CG didn’t yield many results. The mindset of the Board at CG remained the same. This was even though the internal questions and perspective of the textbooks had changed.

The conflict between the Madhya Shiksha Mandal and the SCERT eroded the credibility of the textbook in CG. This is a serious gap of perspective that one observes between NCERT and CBSE as well.

What we didn’t plan, and push for, was active involvement and dialogue with senior Board officials responsible for examination, the set of teachers who check answer scripts at the Board level, teachers who set papers for local school examination, and local school administrators who tend to judge schools and teachers by exam results.

This is a difficult task. However, the textbooks should have been developed with this group in active dialogue and securing their confidence for change. Classroom processes don’t change unless assessment patterns change. Assessment patterns have a farreaching impact on classroom processes. We must stop judging teachers and schools by examination results. We need to devise alternative forms of monitoring for the school administration.

Bihar: A strong teachers’ group, but totally dysfunctional school systems

In Bihar, we did expect to be in a land of acute contradictions. However, we had not anticipated that it would strike at every step. My colleagues had participated in resurrecting the SCERT from the dilapidated building and grounds that had been encroached by neighbors, along with their cattle and stray dogs. When we met for workshops around 2010, the teachers’ energy was great. The discussions were very lively. But there was an undercurrent of cynicism.

One of the teachers during the second workshop came to meet me in my room. With a twinkle in his eyes, he said, “I like the workshop. However, the textbooks won’t come out in time. The guides will appear first. I don’t want to discourage you. But I thought, I’ll let you know.” He was correct. Hardly anyone at the school used textbooks.

Teachers’ involvement, their understanding of ground realities, the ability to write out case studies, and the use of folk literature, was really heartening. They were well-read. With a sense of humor, a teacher came up with a true-life account of everyday discrimination by teachers at the school level, and challenged the group to use the story.

When the textbooks were finally printed, the quality was horrible. The pictures were all ruined. The font was small and the headings were merged. The paper was of newsprint quality. The interlocking supply chain from paper to printer was too strong to intervene in. We satisfied ourselves with an internal letter of protest.

The ground situation of the middle schools for whom these textbooks were meant was equally disturbing. The demand for schooling was high, with acute shortage of classrooms and teachers. OBC and Dalits were entering schools in a big way. One participant jokingly remarked that he was glad only 60% of the enrolled children came to school. “I don’t have the space if all attend,” he said.

On the other hand, a village school, where the panchayat was active and had helped to construct additional classrooms, was filled with students. For additional teachers, they had recruited guest teachers from the Maha Dalit communities. It clearly demonstrated what was possible. In general, schools were dysfunctional. Almost everyone who could afford attended both the school and a coaching center as a matter of routine.

The SCERT, to its credit, had created a vibrant teacher group of nearly 500 teachers across subjects and classes. They also represented various districts of the state. We felt helpless at times. However, it is remarkable that amidst all the chaos, teachers saw hope.

They were probably wiser and had seen more acute phases of conflicts and crises. They were very keen to carry this momentum to the district level. Plans for teacher meetings were drawn up.

But the bureaucracy had other plans. A change at the helm led to a strong rift between the SSA Project Office and the SCERT. SSA began to debunk the perspective of the new textbooks. These signals grew strong. The plan to organize teacher workshops and take this momentum to the field was allowed to sink. The textbooks remained. These are still being used without any support or scaffolding.

In lieu of a conclusion

When one turns around and looks behind, there’s hardly anyone, among state or nonstate actors, whom one would recognize as attempting curricular changes at a state level today. But why am I looking for country cousins? Hasn’t the world changed in the meanwhile? There’s both some urge and a hesitancy in writing about what the future holds for NGOs who are working with the government structures and may be also for curricular changes.

From experiences in the recent past, it is clear that spaces for experimentation would be limited. Yet this is an area that should not be ruled out. If the focus on FLN remains, it may be possible for groups to involve SCERT or education departments for ground trials, so that functional and meaningful models adapted to the social context emerge.

Should states adopt NCERT books or develop their own? This is a likely debate that we may encounter in the coming years. We may see a push and even popular pressure toward centralization, rather than helping states aim for contextualization. Groups could contribute toward a curricular critique and public debates.

And it would be best for them to engage with teachers dialogues, negotiate space, and encourage teachers to experience the use of alternative materials in their own classrooms. And classroom processes must be allowed