Though these proposed changes have a potential to transform early learning in India, a lot will depend on how we actually implement them. | Picture courtesy: Nilesh Nimkar

By Nilesh Nimkar
THANE, MAHARASHTRA, India, Dec 15 2020 (IPS)

It is after almost 34 years that the central government approved the new National Education Policy 2020 on July 29, 2020. This document contains comments on the entire education system and its various recommendations are being heavily debated.

Some believe it to be a revolutionary policy, while others see it as a step towards the dilution of children’s fundamental right to education.

Many educators and practitioners in the field of Early Childhood Education (ECE) have welcomed this policy because it prominently mentions ECE, which has remained a relatively neglected field in previous policy documents.

However, merely highlighting the importance of ECE in the document is not enough. Creating a well-thought-out plan for the universalisation of ECE and its effective implementation would require a dedicated public budget for it, and the policy is silent about this.

The term Early Childhood Education (also known as pre-primary or pre-school education) traditionally refers to the education of children aged three to six years. In India, the current condition of education for this age group lies at two extremes.

In urban areas, pre-schools cover certain topics (such as letters from the alphabet and numbers up to 100) from the curricula of Grades 1 and 2. On the other hand, in rural areas, education in the anganwadis does not go beyond storytelling and teaching some songs and poems.

In fact, as a society, we are unclear about what should be taught to this age group, and how it should be taught. This lack of clarity reflects in our pre-schools.

ECE in the NEP 2020

Historically, ECE in India has remained relatively neglected. This started with the Kothari Commission Report of 1965-66, and continued with the Right to Education Act of 2009, which did not recognise education as a fundamental right for children between three to six years.

In contrast, the NEP 2020 envisages a five-year foundational stage of education: Three years of ECE and the first two years of primary school. In other words, ECE is now supposed to extend from ages three to eight. An important point to note here is that the changes proposed in NEP 2020 are necessarily curricular in nature and not at the level of the physical facilities for ECE.

The existing infrastructure of anganwadis, pre-primary sections attached to schools, and independent pre-school centres are expected to be strengthened for ECE and this can be done only if the government works out a clear roadmap. It also suggests that there should be continuity between the ECE curriculum and Grade 1 and 2 curricula. Though these proposed changes have a potential to transform early learning in India, a lot will depend on how we actually implement them.

Implementing the recommendations

The English saying, ‘the devil lies in the details’, implies that a seemingly easy task can become quite complicated once we get into the details. It is likely that a similar situation will present itself while implementing the recommendations of NEP 2020.

Closely connected with ECE, there is a section on the development of foundational literacy and numeracy in the policy. In this section, NEP 2020 recommends introducing three Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) into ECE. This is in spite of the fact that previous policies speak out against their inclusion.

This, combined with the fact that the education department has been entrusted with curriculum development, has become a cause for worry among many people working in ECE. They think that the currently informal nature of ECE may give way to education that revolves around reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Why are the three Rs given so much importance?

One of the reasons why reading, writing, and arithmetic have been given so much importance in the NEP 2020 is most likely influenced by the following targets India has set under the Sustainable Development Goal 4, which pertains to quality education:

1. By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy.
2. By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care, and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.

Given this, the focus on these areas in the NEP 2020 seems unavoidable. But the larger question here becomes: is it correct to stress on reading-writing-arithmetic at a very young age?

Literacy education: Theory versus perceptions

One of the factors that plays a role in the growing focus on early literacy is society’s perception of it (which does not necessarily align with theoretical evidence).

In India, there is hardly any discussion or research about how to teach reading-writing to young children. One finds diverse beliefs about the concept of early literacy not only in the general public, but also among educators. Some prominent ones include:

1. Any literate individual can teach children to read and write, with little or no training.
2. Children cannot read and write without a thorough command on the letters of the alphabet.
3. It is necessary to teach the entire alphabet properly in pre-school (ABCD for English, Varnamala and Matras for Hindi or Marathi, and so on), so that children can pick up reading-writing quickly in Grade 1.
4. Children should be taught reading first, followed by writing.
5. Once the children know the alphabet, they become literate and start reading and writing almost automatically.

All these beliefs reflect the traditional perspective on literacy education, which considers reading-writing as skills, albeit slightly complex ones. Therefore, the approach to teaching these skills involves breaking up each skill into small parts and learning them one by one.

As a result, the classroom interaction revolves around tasks like repeated practice of standing and sleeping lines or curves as parts of letters or learning individual letters of the alphabet one by one. In pre-schools, it is common to see children practicing a letter or number through repeated copy-writing.

This approach ignores some salient aspects of reading and writing. The primary objective of reading is meaning-making. Through the construction of meaning, it is also expected that the reader should think critically about the thoughts and information expressed in the text. Both these aspects are completely neglected in the prevalent skill-based literacy instruction.

In the western world, an alternative approach to teaching literacy called the Emergent Literacy Approach was proposed in the 1960s. This approach considers literacy development as an integral part of children’s overall development.

It proposes that children need to develop some critical ideas related to printed language and the process of reading and writing much before the formal introduction of the letters of the alphabet. Some of these ideas are as follows:

1. Written language is just another form of the spoken language. What we speak can be written and can be read later.
2. Somebody writes a book and when we read it, we try to understand what the person has written.
3. Writing has many uses. For example, to make lists, to write letters, to label objects, etc.
4. Spoken language contains sentences. Sentences contain words. Words contain sounds.
5. It is possible to manipulate the sounds in words. It is possible to link them with a symbol.

Researchers in the field argue that children from literate homes already have an understanding of some of these ideas, and they learn the remaining when they come to pre-school.

However, children who come from homes which are not literate, such as first-generation school-goers, have to depend solely on the pre-school to learn these ideas.

In such cases, the pre-school plays a very important role. Many techniques have been developed all over the world to teach these ideas to pre-schoolers. Any good quality literacy instruction programme cannot afford to miss these well-established insights.

Learnings from an ECE intervention

Quality Education Support Trust (QUEST), where I work, has been working in the field of ECE for the last few years. We have implemented a literacy programme based on the Emergent Literacy Approach in more than 1,700 anganwadis across Maharashtra.

The data collected so far has shown extremely positive results. We tracked the achievement of anganwadi children during the intervention years and continued to track the same children even after they had moved to primary school; and compared the same with a control group.

After three years of intervention we saw a significant difference of about 19 percentage points on school-readiness test between the control and intervention groups in 2016. This gap persisted even after the intervention ended and the children moved to primary school, when they were tested using a grade-appropriate test.

The decline in the mean scores of both the groups in the year 2019 could probably be attributed to the weak inputs in the primary grades. This shows that early intervention has a long-term impact on children’s learning. However, it is necessary to continue this input in the primary grades.

This aligns very well with the recommendation of NEP to consider the three years of pre-school and first two years of primary schools as one curricular stage.

The number 1,700 may sound very small if we consider the total number of anganwadis in Maharashtra (about 1,08,005), but it highlights the need for continuing the input from pre-school to the first two years of primary school. These types of insights from small-scale experiments need to be taken into account while evolving a large-scale implementation plan for the foundational stage proposed in NEP.

So how do we go ahead?

From this discussion, it is apparent that there is a huge difference between society’s perception of literacy education and the picture that emerges from the theoretical framework and from small-scale experiments. To make foundational literacy a success, it is critical to define early literacy in the light of the theoretical framework.

The proposed ‘National Foundational Literacy and Numeracy Mission’ is expected to lay down such a framework. At this juncture, it is also necessary to have clarity and consensus on the objectives of foundational literacy. Further, it is important to recognise literacy as a means to understand and express thoughts.

Literacy development is a continuous process, and is an important aspect of children’s development. Without this understanding, it would be risky to bring together pre-school centres and early grades of primary school. To put it simply, it would be a welcome change to extend the informality of preschool to Grades 1 and 2. However, it would be detrimental for children if the prevalent skill-based literacy education and evaluation of primary schools is brought down to pre-schools.

To bring this change on a massive scale in a country like India, we need to not only provide appropriate inputs to teachers, but also to create awareness in the community at large. During implementation, if the prevalent popular perception of literacy is taken as a base—instead of the theoretical framework and the insights from empirical work—it is likely to prove harmful.

Nilesh Nimkar has over 20 years’ experience in the field of early childhood education, elementary education, teacher education and curriculum development. He has initiated several innovative programs for teachers and children, specially in the rural and tribal areas. He has received the Maharashtra Foundation Award for ‘Outstanding social work in the field of education’.

This story was originally published by India Development Review (IDR)

When we say that children aren’t learning, what we mean is that they are not fitting into our assessment of their learning outcomes | Picture courtesy: Nilesh Nimkar

By Nilesh Nimkar
THANE, MAHARASHTRA, India, Jun 6 2019 (IPS)

When we look at learning outcomes for children, we only look at standardised tests, ignoring any indigenous knowledge, language, or problem solving strategies they might have.

The brick kilns of Sonale were bustling with activity—children running around, indigenous technology being used, and lots of mathematics being done. I recently went there after a teacher from the nearby primary school approached our nonprofit, Quest, because the children living there were simply not learning. The concern was, if they didn’t even know their multiplication tables, how would they cope in classes V, VI, and VII?

So I went to see for myself. I asked these children, “To make the mortar for the bricks, how many pits have been dug?

“On one side 11; another side 12”

They also told me they would put three containers of raw material in each pit. So I asked them how many containers they would need in total, and after running off to count them, they came back with the right answers. They could also explain how they arrived at those numbers. What I found was that they were counting in threes. Not the way one recites the tables in the schools, but visualising it in their mind.

Clearly, these children knew how to multiply. That they failed to memorise their tables was beside the point. They had understood the concept and had demonstrated a strong meta-cognitive ability when they explained how they arrived at the answer

Clearly, these children knew how to multiply. That they failed to memorise their tables was beside the point. They had understood the concept and had demonstrated a strong meta-cognitive ability when they explained how they arrived at the answer. In my further conversations, I was amazed to see the kinds of calculations the children at the brick kilns did. For instance, 13 multiplied by 11 was done mentally because they were able to understand it within their own context (that of the brick kiln).

Standardised testing disadvantages marginalised children

This example illustrates one of the biggest challenges of our schools today—standardised assessment—which further disadvantages marginalised children. These children have a different type of cultural capital that schools and tests hardly recognise.

Western research in the field of math pedagogy points to the importance of children’s indigenous knowledge and strategies in solving problems and considers them to be the starting point for sound understanding of elementary mathematics. But what are those indigenous strategies in the Indian context? We still don’t know much about them. And our lack of knowledge results in us asking these children to run an unfair race.

Today, when we say that children from marginalised communities aren’t learning, what we mean is that they are not fitting into our assessment of their learning outcomes. By completely ignoring their indigenous knowledge, language, and problem-solving strategies, we have so far continued to focus on what they don’t know, and never paid attention to what they do know.

The process tells us more than just the outcomes

I do not deny the necessity of having some common indicators to understand the status of education in a given cluster, block, district, or state. But setting and chasing these indicators mindlessly could be dangerous.

Take for example, an encounter I had at an SSC exam centre in a rural school a few years ago. While I was visiting, I saw that the teachers were openly giving students answers to questions while they wrote their exams. When I asked why this was happening, a teacher said to me, “These children are weak from the beginning. It is almost impossible that they pass the exam on their own. If they fail, it will affect the result of our school and this would create a lot of trouble for us.”

This encounter is a classic example of what will happen if we neglect the process of learning and just focus on the numerical indicators of success. Our belief tends to be that if we can control learning outcomes, the quality of education will improve. But children can rote learn, or use unfair ways to pass their exams—we have no system that can check it at scale. What’s more, we are forgetting to track whether or not these children truly understand what they’ve been taught.

Ever since the ASER and other such reports have been published, we’ve been talking about how poor the learning outcomes are. But what have we really done to change things? We have been experimenting with examinations more than the actual process of learning, finding newer and newer ways to test the learning outcomes. But, if a pipe is choked, no matter what bowl you put under the opening, no water will drip into it. Similarly, no matter what exams, standard tests, and evaluation tool we use, only a little will change if we fail to address the core issues related to the process of learning.

“What I found was that they were counting in threes. Not the way one recites the tables in the schools, but visualising it in their mind” | Picture courtesy: Nilesh Nimkar

What needs to be done

1. Strengthen the process, invest in teachers

One of the positive outcomes of the Right to Education (RTE) Act is that it improved enrolment rates. But we know that it’s not enough to get children into schools. We need to alter our schools to meet children’s needs. If we want to set the process of education right, we have to strengthen its most impacting factor, the teacher.

Teacher education and ongoing teacher professional development are areas where we haven’t paid much attention. Instead of offering our teachers quick fixes to the challenges they face, we need to begin working with, and for our teachers.

One example of how to do this could be through a technology based distant mentoring system for teachers working across geographies. Quest, the nonprofit I run, has a system like this on a much smaller scale—here, teachers send audio recordings of their classroom activity to mentors (experienced teachers, teacher-educators, or researchers in the field of pedagogy), who then provide them with ongoing feedback to help them fine-tune their skills. This type of support system needs to be created on a larger scale.

2. Change the way we test

We need to alter the tools and parameters we use to assess success. We had a chance to do this when the idea of continuous comprehensive evaluations was introduced. However, the teachers and education community at large could not free themselves from the idea of examinations, and we lost a golden opportunity to bring our focus on to the process.

In a country as diverse as India, the assessment framework could be common for all. But the actual tests should be local and culturally appropriate. For example, I have seen assessment tests that show a picture of a well-maintained French garden or a city park, expecting a rural child to talk about it. In this situation it is obvious that the child will show poor oral expression.

Or yet another example is that of asking children to write words only from the ‘standard’ language—when in reality, Marathi spoken in different parts of Maharashtra is not the same. But normally the assessments are not sensitive to this regional variation, which means that children with a home language that is different than the standard variant of Marathi will always perform poorly.

The question we must ask ourselves is, do we want to make the education system more inclusive, or do we want to use it as a sieve to weed out the ‘weaker’ children? We need to design an overarching framework and build a bank of regionally, culturally appropriate testing items. Unless we do this our focus will always remain on what children don’t know.

Nilesh Nimkar has over 20 years’ experience in the field of early childhood education, elementary education, teacher education and curriculum development. He has initiated several innovative programs for teachers and children, specially in the rural and tribal areas. He has received the Maharashtra Foundation Award for ‘Outstanding social work in the field of education’.

This story was originally published by India Development Review (IDR)