>> Home >> From the Foundation >> Archives

>> Context Related

>> Specific Changes

• 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.

>> Implementation Related

• Operationalization of the document is very important since a lot of things are expected from the teacher. Teacher training, teaching learning material, enabling the teacher to view education in the intended manner, assessing the same – all this needs to be operationalized. The document has not dealt with the aspect of how to enable the teacher to achieve all this.
• NCF 2005 does not mention the role institutions like National Council of Education Research and Training (National Council of Education Research and Training), National Council of Teachers Education (National Council of Teachers Education), Boards etc. should play in translating its vision into reality.
• Emphasis of arts and work experience as integral part of the curriculum is welcome. But in the current staffing pattern, there are not many teachers who are qualified to teach such subjects.

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).