A brief note on Efforts to Address Multi-grade Teaching in India
By Subir Shukla – June 1999
It can be said that there have broadly been three ‘schools of thought’ regarding multigrade teaching in India in recent times.
The ‘governmental’ approach, advocated mainly by the NCERT (a Prof. Gupta having
worked a great deal on this), focused on classroom organization -- mainly through the use
of ‘monitors’ and different blackboards in the classroom. At this time though multi-grade
classrooms continued to be looked upon as an aberration, an exception to what is desired,
and a problem to be overcome. Unfortunately, pedagogically very naive, and continues to
be teacher-oriented in an unpleasant sense (that of the teacher filling in the empty heads
of children). Remained limited to projects initiated by the NCERT, and heading for an
academic entombment.
The ‘self-learning’ and ‘learning-ladder’ approach. This evolved in its fullest dimensions
in the Rishi Valley rural schools in south India. A learning ladder has been evolved, selflearning material created and children work on their own or in groups, marking their own
progress as they go along. Somewhat like the Columbian model, but perhaps more
oriented towards the use of locally available natural material, rather than paper alone.
Major weaknesses -- insufficient spiralling, not too many whole-class activities, not much
emphasis on oral activities and, most important, does not question the curriculum itself
(e.g. claims that it can cover the MLLs faster than a normal school would, but not
questioning whether the MLLs are worth ‘covering’). Seen by some as a quick-fix
solution, satisfying managers rather than curriculum developers. Has expanded to several
hundreds of schools in a few states, and viewed as a model for ‘alternative schooling’.
The ‘autonomy of learning’ and ‘multi-level’ approach. Emerging from the work of
David Horsburgh and then in greater detail through the work of two NGOs in Jaipur,
Rajasthan -- Digantar and Bodh. Emphasis on a learning continuum where a child moves
through a loosely grade system at her own pace. Great conceptual depth and solid
pedagogical understanding. Major weaknesses -- a little too ‘philosophical’, with little
‘system tolerance’ (that is, unwillingness to concede to ‘ground realities’ harped on by
system representatives), much too serious (lacking in verve and whackiness that children
need) and operational only in class sizes of around 20. Has been adapted by some states
for ‘alternative schooling’
DPEP
At the national level, DPEP conducted two sharing workshops. The first focused on
exposure to experiences (such as the kind described above and Escuela Nueva,
represented by Himelda Martinez). There was very little follow up as this took place in
the first phase (1995-96) and there were other more ‘urgent’ matters confronting states.
A second national level workshop, held in February 1998 proved far more in-depth and
solid. All funding agencies participated, hence ensuring considerable international
exposure. All states teams arrived after having undertaken fieldwork and state level
discussions as preparation. A large number of NGOs and institutions were also present to
share their experiences. Each state then made a plan to follow up with small-scale
experiments in multi-grade teaching, to be followed up as and how necessary. Resource
tie-ups were also facilitated during this exchange.
It is clearly recognised that, with over 94% teachers teaching more than one class at a
time, the multi-grade situation is a normal situation rather than an exceptional one.
My own work in multi-grade teaching:
In 1986-87, working with Eklavya (an NGO) I spent around 8 months working with 3 or
more classes at the same time in an effort to evolve a means of implementing an
emerging activity- and child-oriented pedagogy. Over the next 6 years, this and many
other aspects of the project, evolved into an entire curriculum, materials and training
package, which has informed the work of many DPEP states.
In Gujarat
the multi-grade project is essentially an outcome of DPEP’s second national workshop on
multi-grade teaching. The year 98-99 was spent in the following:
A careful selection of the project area: from among specific clusters and blocks so as to
obtain a fairly representative cross section of typical multi-grade situations.
Strengthening of the project area for this work: identification and appointment of capable
coordinators, resource material and infrastructure for interaction.
Identifying and orienting a resource team
Basic orientation of teachers on pedagogical and conceptual issues.
Analysing the curriculum (Gujarat is one of the stronger MLL states) to see if
competencies needed to be clubbed to enable children from consecutive classes to learn
together.
Steps 4 and 5 listed above did not seem to bear much fruit -- teachers still continued to
wonder what it is that they were going to do. It was at this point that I was approached to
facilitate this project as an external resource person.
Consequently, the first step undertaken was to work intensively in 5 schools, where some
of the identified resource persons would pair with teachers and teach for five days
according to a plan, analysing it daily and preparing together for the next day -- with a
view to find out what tends to work better and what creates difficulties. The 5 schools
chosen represent the different and typical multi-grade situations found in Gujarat.
The outcome of this small exercise was revealing indeed. Possible directions in which to
proceed began to emerge. It became evident that in some aspects all five grades coming
together is helpful, in some it is useful is there is a cognitive distance between the
two/three grades working together (e.g. grades 2 and 4 working together) and in some it
is more useful to have consecutive grades working together.
The understanding is that outside the school, children interact in multi-age groups and
this natural condition should not be seen as an obstacle; instead it may actually be an
advantage.
The state now intends to work with teachers and resource persons to enable each teacher
to plan out the teaching and learning process for the first month or two of the academic
session starting from July, evolve materials if necessary and continue with rigorous
follow up/collection of feedback. Such exercises to plan and develop material would take
place on a bi-monthly basis. Successful practices would be documented, collated and
perhaps evolved into a larger project covering, say, 500 schools. If the next two years led
to the consolidation of a ‘multi-grade pedagogy for Gujarat’ it would be scaled to the
whole state.
In my view, the major difficulty confronting teachers is that they are compelled to stick to
grades that specify how much each child is expected to learn in the given period of a
year, with no scope for enabling individual and varying paces of learning. This is
compounded by the textbook which requires all children to learn the same amount from
the same text in the same period.
In a far-reaching development, the state of Madhya Pradesh has, recently, begun to
consider whether a non-grade system could be thought of.
In a Girls’ Education Project that I am working for in Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh), which are
essentially single teacher schools run for girls in areas where schools are unlikely to open
and which have local women recruited by the community as teachers, an effort has been
made to get rid of these constraints by providing a material rich environment that also
allows self-paced learning, and is tolerant of class sizes of up to 40+. Work started in
October 98, and in case it is successful, it would serve as a breakthrough to help efforts at
addressing multi-grade issues elsewhere.
Subir Shukla
III/108 Kirti Apts, 16 Mayur Vihar Phase I Extn., Delhi 110 091, INDIA
Ph: 91-011-2717204 E-mail: primary@del3.vsnl.net.in