-
National Curriculum
Framework 2005 does not deal with what have been the positions
in the earlier Curriculum Framework and how the same must
change and why. For instance, there is a mention of constructivist
approach, and there is some critique of the behaviorist
approach, but it does not say why we must move on to constructivism.
Similarly, minimum levels of learning have been criticized
in passing.
-
There ought
to have been a greater critique of why we are in the state
that we are. Many of the ideas mentioned in National Curriculum
Framework 2005 are not new – for instance, rote
learning. An analysis of why we are stuck in it even though
it has been criticized for long would have helped us to
fight it better.
-
Framework hopes
that local bodies would create the curriculum taking inspiration
from NCF 2005. However, it does not discuss the issues
which might arise if you ask the local bodies to create
curriculum. For example, clash between modern and traditional
view points.
-
NCF 2005 clearly
is a vision document for transformation of Indian school
education. However, it has no real theory of change embedded
in it, and therefore, would this document have the same
fate as of several earlier?
-
It is not clear
who this document is addressing? Is it usable by the schools
and the teachers? In any case it has to be written in
a much simpler language to enable a larger cross-section
of population to read it.
-
The document
needs to be articulated in manner that there is no gender
bias.
-
NCF 2005 seems
to have missed out consulting children in the preparation
of the document. Children should be consulted and they
do have their viewpoint on what should be taught, how
it should be taught and how it should be assessed.
-
The issue of
language teaching has always been controversial. The recommendation
on language teaching should be based on sound research.
For example, how many languages should one teach pedagogically
speaking? It is said that children can learn many languages
in the early stages of development. If true, why restrict
by a three-language policy?
-
NCF 2005 talks
of inclusive education – multiple abilities, multiple-intelligence
etc. This idea should have extended to inclusive pedagogy
too. Focusing on constructivism, to the exclusion of other
pedagogies, might be limiting.
-
NCF 2005 makes
a reference to common schooling but does not dwell on
how it has to be achieved.
-
Different subjects
have adopted different approaches. For instance, Science
teaching talks of cognitive validity, content validity
etc. Why could not be same common framework be used for
other disciplines?
-
Instead of “Peace
Education”, it might be better to talk of values
enshrined in our constitution, and weave it in the teaching
of various subjects.
-
Framework does
not address the different needs of adolescent children
adequately.
-
Civics seems
to be a good enough description of what we are expecting
from this discipline. Therefore, there is no need to change
it to political science.
-
NCF 2005 seems
to be propounding common curriculum up to secondary grade.
While it is arguable as to at what stage the diversification
should begin, in our view diversification at the secondary
stage appears reasonable.
-
Pre-school education
has been given a short shrift in NCF 2005.
-
Many of the ideas
in NCF 2005 do not appear to be grounded in solid research.
NCF 2005 should also lay down a program of research.
-
NCF 2005 does
not address the most important issue of accountability.
At the moment, accountability seems to rest on the child
if learning is not taking place, and not on the system.
These recommendations were sent by Mr.
Azim Premji to Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India and to National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT).
