Observations on the West Bengal School Syllabus Committee's Report

Observations on the Report submitted by the School Curriculum & Syllabus Committee constituted by the Government of West Bengal 2011

At the very outset it should be recognised that , the draft-report of the school curriculum & syllabus committee is a historical document that breaks away from Colonial legacy in education; addressing the present context of emerging liberal society. In appreciating this report studied and articulated in remarkably brief time, what attracts is its presentation format; broken down into segment with repetitive mentions appears to have resulted by the absence of a central theoretical premise that could have articulated entire set of recommendations within a logical sequence. I trust this draft report should articulate a structured document in the form of State Curricular Framework, which will be followed by a State syllabus for elementary education and the other for High school education. SCF document by that argument would provide direction for articulating SCF for Teacher education and an Administrative policy statement.

The last mention would be important for the report is suggests a different curricular approach that requires a shift in approach in managing the affairs. After all, managing the curriculum has to be the business of the administrative support system. This is to mention here that shift from ‘memorising’ kind of learning that is technically known as Acquisition model of learning is fast disappearing from developed countries and replaced by Constructivist model. The theoretical premise behind these distinct models of learning has been identified by Rabindranath as late as by more than 100 years. He identified these two models/approaches as ‘Sangraha’ and ‘Nirman’. In this year of 150^th Birthday of the poet-educator we could have paid our respect recognising his ideals of education approaching the same ideals of learning. Returning to the issue, the present administration system inherited from colonial time perhaps needs a change in approach conducive to the sustenance of the proposed system approach and values enshrined in this model. Without this change in administrative support system, the very difference in approach may not find itself secured. In fact, need for a systemic approach in management reform is an issue that is mentioned in the report, legally speaking this requires further deliberations for there are some clause and by-laws in The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 that was not dealt in the recommendation either in favour or dropped. Perhaps a clarification for not accepting those section of the Act need to be added before exposing the final document to legal debate and criticism of the civil society.

There is no difficulty to understand the idea/s behind the recommendations argued by common knowledge but the issue of theoretical premise for proposing the same becomes important while critiquing them from an academic perspective. Trusting academic tradition of objectivity of knowledge such an attribute is to open up further possibilities with option to extend and develop. For an example the pedagogy of learning English as second language the report proposes a method that in a way an improvement of Pabitra Sarkar Report. Interestingly, not in the former report or in the present report there is any mention of the theoretical basis of such recommendation. The absence, makes this decision arrived more out of subjective consideration than an objective validity. Interestingly, Acharjyo Brojendranath Shil proposing the same theorized the premise objectively [or scientifically as is often said] more than 100 years ago. Acharjyo Shil perceived- “We learn language in short more by learning it spoken than by artificial exercises in Syntax or Idioms—conversation, questions and replies to questions… . Constant and familiar use of certain simple forms of clauses and phrases, the sentence taken as the unit of speech rather than the word, the co-operation of the tongue and the ear in reciting page after page, these are surest, the most rapid and the most powerful means of learning a foreign language. They are the conscious imitation of unconscious process by which we learn our vernacular in infancy. (Note on University Reform submitted to the Indian Universities Commission.) Pioneer in Linguistics studies in this country, Acharjyo Shil praised in this connection the effort of Rabindranath for the language primers he wrote—Ingraji Sopan/’Steps to English’. As a matter of fact, it is the same approach proposed in the present report as it is in three part publication of English primer printed more than 100 years ago. Achajyo Shil found these primers are carrying successfully the ideas of the theory he proposed. The poet as educator not only had spent his creative energy but tried this method for some time before publishing, he claimed, the method is field-tested. The State document on education’s being oblivion to the past experience however is symptomatic; many theorists observed that a post-colonised society in parting away with the memory of colonisation often tends to forget the radical ideas that inspired the force of anti-colonisation spirit. Hopefully, the final version of SCF would find theoretical inspiration from our celebrated past.

The report took every opportunity in proposing the learning process free of intimidating, norm-abiding climate that prevails in the present classrooms. Many of the structural-sociologists had found the root of such subjugation of mind and body as build within the very structure of the classrooms, the physical space. This is to point out that both the NCF and this report deliberating on constructing learning space focussed on mental space and missed the issue of physical space that again reminds of the colonial legacy and that again very much an apparatus of Acquisition model. This assertion in one hand, acknowledging the proposed curricular approach as Nirman model as opposed to Sangraha underlines the importance of a theoretical framework for proposing a policy statement on education. On the other hand, claims the very structural attributes of a learning space as an apparatus of the same Sangraha model that the report appears to have rejected in favour of a liberal education as premised in the primary objectives of the report compilation. This is to recall here that this is an aspect in child education that Rabindranath had persuaded most creatively in creating a democratic physical space for learning. The idea through time has attracted imagination of liberal and progressive educators in the country and outside. It may not be a wishful thinking only that the State in proposing it’s first ever Curriculum for school education shall learn from Rabindranath in the year of his 150^th Birthday celebration.

Finally, I would point out that the report although suggests different teaching methods in connection with different syllabus content, the report do not gives a clear view on Teacher’s education that would be critical in building capacity of the teachers already in the service and the new recruits. Secondly, even this report suggests a diversity in approach in streaming school education from upper classes the suggestions are not enough to understand the approach. Vocationalising education for an emerging economy is cardinal to develop human resource. I hope the final document would present a clear view of this streaming out provision. May be, the groups working on Technical education in the state would be included in designing the approach of integration and streaming.

Observations on the West Bengal School Syllabus Committee's Report

Observations on the Report submitted by the School Curriculum & Syllabus Committee constituted by the Government of West Bengal 2011

At the very outset it should be recognised that , the draft-report of the school curriculum & syllabus committee is a historical document that breaks away from Colonial legacy in education; addressing the present context of emerging liberal society. In appreciating this report studied and articulated in remarkably brief time, what attracts is its presentation format; broken down into segment with repetitive mentions appears to have resulted by the absence of a central theoretical premise that could have articulated entire set of recommendations within a logical sequence. I trust this draft report should articulate a structured document in the form of State Curricular Framework, which will be followed by a State syllabus for elementary education and the other for High school education. SCF document by that argument would provide direction for articulating SCF for Teacher education and an Administrative policy statement.

The last mention would be important for the report is suggests a different curricular approach that requires a shift in approach in managing the affairs. After all, managing the curriculum has to be the business of the administrative support system. This is to mention here that shift from ‘memorising’ kind of learning that is technically known as Acquisition model of learning is fast disappearing from developed countries and replaced by Constructivist model. The theoretical premise behind these distinct models of learning has been identified by Rabindranath as late as by more than 100 years. He identified these two models/approaches as ‘Sangraha’ and ‘Nirman’. In this year of 150^th Birthday of the poet-educator we could have paid our respect recognising his ideals of education approaching the same ideals of learning. Returning to the issue, the present administration system inherited from colonial time perhaps needs a change in approach conducive to the sustenance of the proposed system approach and values enshrined in this model. Without this change in administrative support system, the very difference in approach may not find itself secured. In fact, need for a systemic approach in management reform is an issue that is mentioned in the report, legally speaking this requires further deliberations for there are some clause and by-laws in The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 that was not dealt in the recommendation either in favour or dropped. Perhaps a clarification for not accepting those section of the Act need to be added before exposing the final document to legal debate and criticism of the civil society.

There is no difficulty to understand the idea/s behind the recommendations argued by common knowledge but the issue of theoretical premise for proposing the same becomes important while critiquing them from an academic perspective. Trusting academic tradition of objectivity of knowledge such an attribute is to open up further possibilities with option to extend and develop. For an example the pedagogy of learning English as second language the report proposes a method that in a way an improvement of Pabitra Sarkar Report. Interestingly, not in the former report or in the present report there is any mention of the theoretical basis of such recommendation. The absence, makes this decision arrived more out of subjective consideration than an objective validity. Interestingly, Acharjyo Brojendranath Shil proposing the same theorized the premise objectively [or scientifically as is often said] more than 100 years ago. Acharjyo Shil perceived- “We learn language in short more by learning it spoken than by artificial exercises in Syntax or Idioms—conversation, questions and replies to questions… . Constant and familiar use of certain simple forms of clauses and phrases, the sentence taken as the unit of speech rather than the word, the co-operation of the tongue and the ear in reciting page after page, these are surest, the most rapid and the most powerful means of learning a foreign language. They are the conscious imitation of unconscious process by which we learn our vernacular in infancy. (Note on University Reform submitted to the Indian Universities Commission.) Pioneer in Linguistics studies in this country, Acharjyo Shil praised in this connection the effort of Rabindranath for the language primers he wrote—Ingraji Sopan/’Steps to English’. As a matter of fact, it is the same approach proposed in the present report as it is in three part publication of English primer printed more than 100 years ago. Achajyo Shil found these primers are carrying successfully the ideas of the theory he proposed. The poet as educator not only had spent his creative energy but tried this method for some time before publishing, he claimed, the method is field-tested. The State document on education’s being oblivion to the past experience however is symptomatic; many theorists observed that a post-colonised society in parting away with the memory of colonisation often tends to forget the radical ideas that inspired the force of anti-colonisation spirit. Hopefully, the final version of SCF would find theoretical inspiration from our celebrated past.

The report took every opportunity in proposing the learning process free of intimidating, norm-abiding climate that prevails in the present classrooms. Many of the structural-sociologists had found the root of such subjugation of mind and body as build within the very structure of the classrooms, the physical space. This is to point out that both the NCF and this report deliberating on constructing learning space focussed on mental space and missed the issue of physical space that again reminds of the colonial legacy and that again very much an apparatus of Acquisition model. This assertion in one hand, acknowledging the proposed curricular approach as Nirman model as opposed to Sangraha underlines the importance of a theoretical framework for proposing a policy statement on education. On the other hand, claims the very structural attributes of a learning space as an apparatus of the same Sangraha model that the report appears to have rejected in favour of a liberal education as premised in the primary objectives of the report compilation. This is to recall here that this is an aspect in child education that Rabindranath had persuaded most creatively in creating a democratic physical space for learning. The idea through time has attracted imagination of liberal and progressive educators in the country and outside. It may not be a wishful thinking only that the State in proposing it’s first ever Curriculum for school education shall learn from Rabindranath in the year of his 150^th Birthday celebration.

Finally, I would point out that the report although suggests different teaching methods in connection with different syllabus content, the report do not gives a clear view on Teacher’s education that would be critical in building capacity of the teachers already in the service and the new recruits. Secondly, even this report suggests a diversity in approach in streaming school education from upper classes the suggestions are not enough to understand the approach. Vocationalising education for an emerging economy is cardinal to develop human resource. I hope the final document would present a clear view of this streaming out provision. May be, the groups working on Technical education in the state would be included in designing the approach of integration and streaming.

Why Rabindranath is relevant for reviewing NCF-2005?

Why Rabin

Since NPE-1986 muted the idea of NCF, articulating the policy document remained an issue with conflict between tradition and modernity of the post-colonial India. Every post-colonised society tends to dissociate from its colonial past invoking its pre-colonial past even at the risk of reviving ideas that were obscure and rejected. Such rejections are embedded in colonial time that aspired for a post-colonial society. Aspiration of colonised society on the other hand expressed through Nationalistic polity the idea of a Nation that eventually it saw through the transition of political and economic power. Theoretical postulation on education that Rabindranath put forwarded in 1892, in the public domain was essentially for the de-colonised country (see: Shikshar Herpher, Vol 10, Rabindra Rachanabali). Such assertions actually were precursor for Nationalistic polity and saw the country through Independence movement. If freeing the country from colonial rule was one face of such movement, the other face was critiquing the ancient society, aspiring for moderation towards an equitable and resurgent India; modern without losing connect with its tradition.

NCF-2005 is remarkable in proposing a modernizing project, proposing a break from the colonial past, but in the process appears to have lost connect with the modernizing nationalistic projects that took off during colonial time. Modern in contextualising the idea of education in the contemporary world society, NCF-2005 proposes a curricular approach that takes on construction of personal knowledge. Indian tradition however, always articulated education on the other hand as a social surplus and for a purpose that is not necessarily argued by the immediacy of worldly needs. That puts the purpose of getting educated with an Eastern tone. There are quotes from Rabindranath to emphasize the point but the actual framework lacks direction. The very ethos of Indian tradition lives with the idea of sharing resources. The morality of such a decision of sharing common resource however is a subject of beliefs in human values—spiritual as one may say. Rabindranath’s consideration of education as social surplus has an argument for the just and equitable human society was aspired as a radical idea in pre-independent India, at the face of mechanistic mode of education. To contest such mechanization, Rabindranath had added the human value of morality and that is obscure in NCF-2005. Applying hard its head to establish the very curricular approach, somewhere it could not touch the heart.

As a rule, every curricular plan always projects a description of the socio-economic and cultural future of the country. NCF is after all a document on planning of human resource for the future society. Contemporary educational studies are divided between reproduction of knowledge and creation of newer. Continuing with the past knowledge value being a process of reproducing the production and other social, cultural relations, is again justified by the logic of maintaining status quo in the society and its power structures. Politically that has its own implications. Creating newer knowledge as a logical reflection to the past knowledge is to open up newer social and economic relations. Society in 1893 was not the same as today but Rabindranath’s proposition was a focused on critical discontinuation from the obscure past for a rejuvenated society (See: Adim Sambal, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali) As a matter of fact, his claim in that particular moment of time, that “by the rule of history, British rulers shall leave the country, one day”—is almost unnerving (See: Shikshar Herfer’er Punarabritti, and Prasngakatha, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali). But that were parts of his argument in proposing his educational idea that called for a break from the past towards a new knowledge system. His remarkable insight argued that in a new world order knowledge is flowing from West that reasonably control the societal, that we understand today as impact on political-economy of the colonised countries. We understand today, this knowledge dominance coupled with large capital accumulation interpreted through techno-economy puts de-colonised countries to blaze the tail only joining the global economic entrepreneurship at service sector. Rabindranath’s insightful call for construction of knowledge or নির্মান [Nirman] instead of acquisition of produced knowledge or উৎপন্ন সংগ্রহ [Utpanna Sangraha] (See: Shikhsar Herfer, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali) was addressed to break away from this knowledge dominance and proposing an alternative knowledge system characteristically local in attribute. (See: Karm’er Umedari, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali)

Present time puts up certain reality argued by economic liberalisation and global economic instability coupled with constant expansion of market and change in production especially for a primarily agrarian and rain-fed Indian economy. Acceptance of the reality puts up a rationale for educational planners—reproduction of knowledge shall be reviewed for construction or নির্মান [Nirman] of knowledge. In other words child putting their feet in the primary school shall learn ‘how to learn’ for they will have to learn throughout her life in order to be able to stay active with the changing economic life of the society. Surely, Rabindranath ever visualized such a scenario but his call for breaking away from the past practice of উৎপন্ন সংগ্রহ [Utpanna Sangraha] for নির্মান [Nirman] is perhaps most relevant that no curriculum planner could just ignore.

Rabindranath’s proposition of claiming education as a social surplus was a radical idea as it is today. Economic planners have already recognised this as a fact in formulating developmental parameters. But the dumb numbers of literacy rate however do not recognize the quanta of knowledge increment, a certain increase in literacy rate had created. But that is important for any developing society. Developing after all is a subject of gaining an economic height than others, which shall reasonably try to bring entire population under the process educating which other than empowering an individual shall make her education relevant for others as well getting engaged with the larger society. Education must flow freely across the breadth and width of the society and beyond school buildings. NCF-2005, engrossed with addressing the school somewhere missed the idea of educating the society, to create social surplus. Education today must produce and construct newer knowledge as surplus to make it meaningful and relevant for the society which sustains it; claiming this is only recalling Rabindranath in his 150^th Birth anniversary.

Brining in the entire educable population under the same fold has no history in this country till this day. Traditionally Indian education, not exactly in British connotation is ‘Elite’ in the sense that only the financially elite society always could afford it; the knowledge content always justified the need of the same elite society. Such knowledge content being the mainstream never considered knowledge with the ‘plebeian’ society important to be accessed institutionally. This schism effecting on the equity is already creating noise while economy of the decolonised country is transforming from farm economy to manufacturing and service economy. Institutional education remained confined for the benefit of for secondary and/or tertiary economy only. The economic life in the primary sector following the tradition remained outside institutional education as always. Reasonably that emerged with a huge population in the unorganized sector, without any structured system of knowledge acquisition or skill building opportunity and depending on traditional knowledge for delivery of physical labour only. Moderation of education requires addressing this socio-educational schism through integrating both the knowledge system with a democratic justification. NCF-2005 could only consider ‘vocational education’ for that purpose as a separate system, reproducing the tradition of socio-educational schism. There it rather remained with the tradition.

A break is needed badly from the past for every education today is vocationally justified. A mason or carpenter, uneducated institutionally in his trade/vocation is after all wastage of human potential but at the benefit of its employer who only pays for his labour much lower and cares for her professional benefits than a similar worker in service sector. This again recalls the issue of manual reproduction of skills ignoring the knowledge content of such human endeavour. Apart from deprivation of adequate compensation this tradition fails to construct new knowledge as surplus. A break from tradition here is badly needed for a modern India. This again reverberate Rabindranath’s idealization of education that rejected ‘educational caste system’ and considered education in its entirety suspecting the undemocratic tag of ‘vocational education’. NCF of modern, de-colonised India should be democratic at first instance. Among the fore fathers of Indian nationalism, Rabindranath radicalised this idea by brining democratic value in it, not only in ideation but in praxis.

Democratization of education as a praxis was the major achievement of educator Rabindranath during his engagement with the school at least for ten years, when he spend his creative mind in action research in school education. That took the major note while conceiving the classroom, teaching and even school management. Later, he proposed this as a model when the country was in search for a National education system. The legacy of elitism could not gather enough insight to accept this as an acceptable idea. Historically Rabindranath disassociated himself from National Education Movement. During this time, in a personal letter to Ramendra Sundar Trivedi (1909) he expressed his dismay-“I am sitting by the window, I kept the lamp burning and I shall wait till my countrymen accepts the worth of this idea.” The year that celebrates his 150^th Birthday could be a better time to look back at the lamp that is waiting long by the window.

Bratin Chattopadhyay

31^st July 2011