The value of diversity

Sister Cyril Mooney, Principal, Loreto Day School, Sealdah, Kolkata, in conversation with Kumar Rana, Project Director, the Pratichi Institute of the Pratichi Trust, Kolkata and Anwesha Rana, an undergraduate student at the Jadavpur University, Kolkata.

Let us begin with a dichotomy: We are told – in our school books, political lectures and newspaper editorials – that our diversity is our strength, not weakness. But, when we go to the primary schools, we hear people talking about diversity as if it is a major problem. And, with tremendous increase in enrolment in the primary schools – thanks to a growing aspiration amongst poor, unlettered parents for their children to acquire education – the so-called ‘problem of diversity’ is growing day by day. For example, in the late seventies, the gross enrolment ratio at primary level in West Bengal was below 50 per cent; it is now well over 100 per cent. The net enrolment has also tremendously increased. But, this positive advance, which enabled the children of the underclass – the socially and economically disadvantaged sections – to make an entry into the arena of education, is often negated by the poor quality of learning achievement of these children. And, often this poor level of achievement is attributed to the children’s illiterate parental background – such children are called ‘first generation learners’ who, according to majority of teachers and others, fail to achieve the level their ‘other’ counterparts can.

For a start, any learner is a first time learner, irrespective of her generational status of learning! Teachers who say some children can’t learn are actually bad teachers. They use rote learning. But these children come from real situations and a practical world, not from cozy homes where everything is laid out for them and they don’t have to lift a finger to get anything. These are sterile classrooms with textbooks that have no meaning for the children. Different children have different abilities, which need to be recognized first. And, once this is recognized, things become easier: teachers can then use the particular abilities of the children to build their confidence to learn other things.

Second, the value of diversity is not only an end, but also a means. In a group of children with different abilities, a teacher who respects diversity and the centrality of the child, would underline the abilities of each child so that no one would feel ‘unable’. But, a bad teacher would only widen the gap by highlighting the skills of the 3 Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic. But, this is not right; a good teacher has to keep in mind that every child has the basic ability to learn; what is important is to find out different methods and techniques for the individual child. It’s not difficult: actually the difficulty lies in our mind. Some preconceived ideas, drawn from traditional methods and culture, make things difficult. Once one gets out of these ideas and recognizes different abilities and inclination of the children, one can easily attract them to acquire the 3 Rs.

 

While teachers in general tend to take a traditional route, placing a lot of emphasis on rote learning, there are many other teachers who are actually quite innovative. Pratichi Institute recently conducted a series of teachers’ writing workshops where teachers wrote about their experiences of teaching and recorded many brilliant innovative practices. But, these innovations are rarely recognized as inspirational. How do you think this can be done in a coordinated manner?

There should be resource centres – we have one in our school. There can be similar centres elsewhere. Teachers can feed us their innovationsso that they can be further disseminated amongst other teachers. Recognition is certainly important: it’s not only a motivation for the concerned teachers, but could also be a motivation for others. We have a knowledge hub where all such information is collected and processed.

 

So, we acknowledge that teaching methods have to be different for different children. And there cannot be narrowly set recommendations for applying these methods. What have been your experiences here?

Proper handling of books is necessary, not necessarily introduction of new books. Practical methods of teaching need to be applied. In our school we link everything to each other. Say when it is the monsoon season, we make it the basis of the lessons. We do sums like volume of water, surface area etc., and children learn much more practically. When things are linked together, they make much more sense to the children. A group of people in our knowledge hub work to generate themes and encourage environment and theme-based teaching. A twenty day lesson planning is done; the syllabus is divided into twelve parts and linked to a theme pertaining to the particular month. Like January has Republic Day and Bose’s birthday, so we have a patriotic theme. Then there is Saraswati Puja in February and Easter in March. Then we have seasons – summer, monsoon, etc. And again, Independence Day, Durga Puja, Guru Nanak’s Birthday, Eid and Christmas in December. Once we asked the students to bring lime and sugar and make lime juice and note down the sequence. Many of them hadn’t done it before and they learnt something new. We need a radical change in the syllabus.

 

In many primary schools we have seen that even the most dedicated teachers are unable to complete the syllabus. And often this overload becomes a major reason for private tuition. Many parents do not have the capability of helping with home task and so have to resort to private tutors.

The syllabus is unenjoyable; in fact, it is drudgery for the children. What is demanded of the children is simply nonsense. It is solely dependent on rote learning. Children are forced to do something which they have no reason to like. So, even if the teacher is good, she cannot generate children’s interest. This is one. Second, even if the teacher is good, how can she cover such a huge syllabus inside school hours? The school has fixed timings which cannot be stretched beyond a point.

These are rural children who have to do a lot of domestic work. Some have to look after the cattle, some have to cook or do the washing. In addition, many of the children do not have decent arrangements for studying at home – no place to sit, no lighting, and so on.

 

Many are in favour of home task. Do you think there is a difference between home task and studying at home?

We need to find other outlets. Parents should provide other stimulation such as storybooks, paints, etc. which provide outlets for the child’s creative talent. You’ll see that in our Junior School Progress Report, it’s written: ‘At Junior Level, no formal homework is set, as the child is expected to learn what she needs to know in school.’

 

Pratichi Institute has started a series of children’s reading festivals. We see that the children are eager and respond enthusiastically. At the same time, however, there is apathy amongst them towards textbooks. Why do you think this happens – is it because of the content or the production?

Colourful books are needed. The children won’t be interested in dull books. The Class V books are too much to study. In our experience at Loreto School, children do not dislike studying – rather the opposite. Why? We provide them the space where they learn with fun, with lots of activities – many of which are even planned by them – books with lots of pictures, and so on. So they enjoy the whole process – never do they feel that they are being ‘asked’ to do something, rather they feel all the activities to be their own.

 

There is a problem of language. On the one hand, we have children who speak Bangla, which the children of different communities, particularly the Adivasis, often fail to comprehend. On the other hand, there is a growing – and irresistible – trend of joining the so-called English medium schools. And, this tendency has forced the West Bengal government to reintroduce English at the primary level.

If I had my way, there would be no English medium schools because it creates a hierarchy. Fifty per cent of the children in our school are from slums, speaking no English at all. It is wrong to insist that children speak in English. I insist that they learn a language completely, correctly and speak it, rather than speak broken or incorrect English. In some schools children are forced to speak English – I think this is horrible. Father Beckers had once said that we are ‘producing linguistic bastards.’ I insist that a child has a proper base in a language.

The first option for a child should be to have the opportunity to learn in her mother tongue. But, if English medium is so important for people, then every child should have the opportunity to go to English medium schools – that’s the second best option. The first is, of course, to be taught in their mother tongue.

 

Schools in certain areas have children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. For example, in the tea gardens of North Bengal, we have Nepali, Sadri, and Bangla speaking children in the same class. In the western part of the state, and also in many other areas, we have Santhali and Bangla speaking children studying together. The Right to Education Act requires that children be taught in their mother tongue. How can this be done?

No, no; there have to be arrangements – equal opportunity for all children. We need teachers and reading materials for different groups. That does not, however, mean that all have to be taught separately. This gives an opportunity to the children to mix with others and know others’ language. But, certainly there needs to be sufficient basic provisions – teachers speaking the language of the children and reading materials in the same language. Multilingual schools are generally seen as a problem, but actually it’s an opportunity. But, since this is seen as a problem, all students are dumped into the Bengali speaking classes and labelled stupid when they don’t follow the language and so are pushed aside. The teachers and classmates aren’t helpful and when it becomes unpleasant, these children drop out. In that case, we can argue for English or Hindi.

 

You have proved here that children from two different spheres can work together. Many wonder how that is possible.

It really works, as we have seen in our school. There are children of different backgrounds in the same class – from slums as well as multistorey complexes; from elite Bangali families to the Hindi-speaking rag-pickers and rickshaw pullers. Teachers are very dedicated and sympathetic, there is no question about it; but the real strength lies in the philosophical underpinning: Every child is a child and has the same right to flourish as a complete human being. Her identity as a child is her central identity – her gender, caste, religion, economic strata are all irrelevant in this context. This philosophy bases itself on the fact that all children have the ability to learn and flourish.

 

Some teachers are sceptical about age-specific teaching.

In one way it is ideally meant to eradicate exclusion, but actually it creates it. You have to prepare those children through accelerated learning. A ten or eleven year old working in a tea stall is also an adult. But in a classroom, the child is vulnerable and can be made fun of. We teach numbers here through the dice. Additions are fastest that way. The children from the streets enjoy that because it’s beginning with something they already know. Learning with cards, a brick etc. is very effective.

 

A recognition that every child is born with some capabilities of learning.

In her first four or five years, the child learns more than s/he will ever learn again.

 

The pre-primary is a vital entry into schooling, but this is missing, particularly in the rural areas.

This I think is very lazy on the part of the teachers. The senior school teacher expects that the children will come up with a lot of skills. An anganwadi worker needs to bring things down to the baby level; they don’t see life from the grassroots level because they haven’t known it in their children. In villages, the mothers don’t have time to spend with the children or explain things to them. There is also a lot that the city children are deprived of. Well-off city children are deprived of a lot of fantastic environmental stimulation that the street child gets. We sometimes take the children on expeditions, and see how happy they are to see grass; they immediately fling themselves down on the grass and enjoy it. Learning depends a lot on your emotions. There are so many activities in the classrooms. The children can learn from each other. In our school, the children are graded on their skills, not their knowledge. If you have a set of children not ready for the next class, it is because they don’t have the capacity to absorb the next class. And, it is the teachers’ responsibility to prepare them for that.

 

Can we really eradicate exclusion with so many private schools burgeoning in the country? Children whose parents can pay are inclined to enrol their children in private schools, but those who cannot pay have to depend on government schools. Now, since those who cannot pay are also voiceless, the functioning of the government schools is often affected by the absence of social audit. What do you think about this?

The government system has to be strengthened. There is no other way. You see, all private schools are not good; rather there are many bad private schools. It is an illusion among parents that private schools are good. Therefore, the government schools have to be efficient in all regards; to do this the government has to take some major steps. The implementation of the Right to Education Act could be one such step. But, in addition, there have to be other measures – some well-coordinated and cohesive programmes. Society too has to come forward. The government alone cannot do this – society has its own role to play.