| Are
the educational reforms on the correct track? By Prof. J. Wanasinghe Sometime back Prof. G. L. Peiris commented on the lethargic and laissez-faire attitude of academics and professionals towards innovations/projects launched by the government. He stressed that the academics and the professionals could make a worthwhile contribution by offering constructive criticism based on sound data. This is widely practised in countries like UK and USA because such active participation brings in a self correcting mechanism into the entire process of government. Sri Lanka with the assistance of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (IDA) is just about to embark on a massive innovatory overhaul of its system of education. Lot of claims and counter claims are made by politicians on these innovations. If any teacher, principal or parent is asked whether the Ministry of Education has created an awareness of at least the major aspects of these reforms, they would all reply that they know very little. Every thing is done under a blanket of secrecy. The ADB offered funds for the Secondary Education Development Project (SEDP) while the World Bank agreed to provide funds to the tune of US $64.1 million for the Teacher Education and Teacher Deployment Project. A careful examination of the educational situation in Sri Lanka indicates the need for such projects. Sri Lanka revised its total school curricula for the first time after Independence in 1965. Thereafter it revised all school curricula in 1972, 1978, 1985, 1992 and now in 1999. Perhaps, Sri Lanka is the only country in the world to change its school curricula every 6 or 7 years. Practising teachers say that every school curriculum is changed by the time they get familiarised to implement each curriculum with some confidence. As new curricula are thrust on them within a short period, they are overburdened with the responsibility of implementing successfully yet another curriculum. Essentially the Sri Lankan school curricula are in a state of crisis. This is because the curricula were not drawn up on sound curriculum theory. Further not a single curriculum was pre-tested and evaluated to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses. In a situation like this Sri Lanka is fortunate to have received adequate funds to launch a full scale school curriculum revision. In 1993, out of a total of 1,93,916 teachers as many as 93,079 (48%) were untrained and unqualified. At present teachers are trained in four different types of institutions - Teachers' Training Colleges, Colleges of Education, National Institute of Education and Universities. There was hardly any co-ordination between these institutions resulting in a mismatch between teacher demand in certain subjects and the number actually being trained under the various subjects. Further, at the present rate of production of trained teachers it would take a long time to train even the existing number of untrained teachers. In a situation like this the World Bank came to our aid to train teachers with a generous loan of US $64.1 million. The intended duration of the project was five years. Originally the World Bank planned to commence the work on the project in November 1996. It advertised to recruit local and foreign consultants in the Sunday Observer of 1st September 1996. To date, even after two years, neither foreign major local consultants have been selected. The entire Teacher Education and Teacher Deployment Project remains in cold storage. As will be seen later it would be possible to deduce that the World Bank is not satisfied with the way the Ministry of Education handles both projects - ADB and World Bank. ADB curriculum reforms Before 1949, a curriculum was seen throughout the world as an ad hoc collection of topics that are worthy of study by the students. Ralph Tyler, after studying the reasons behind the success of some industries in USA, pointed out that every such industry adhered to the principle of "management by objectives". Tyler in 1949 introduced the same principle to curriculum development. He emphasised that a sound curriculum could be drawn up based on four (4) fundamental questions. These are - 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? 3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organised? 4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? At that time, throughout the world, this model was accepted as a great landmark in curriculum development. Tyler was referred to as the "father of the Objectives Model of curriculum development". He was the first to define curriculum as a collection of learning experiences and not as a collection of topics which we call today a "syllabus". Tyler was also the first to introduce "evaluation" as a sine qua non in the process of curriculum development. However, curriculum specialists later indicated that the inclusion of evaluation as the last stage of curriculum development process is similar to a situation of collecting military intelligence after the war was over. In response to this criticism, later curriculum developers, while agreeing that evaluation is part and parcel of this process, accepted that it should be done at every stage of development as well as at the end. Evaluation undertaken at each stage is known as "formative evaluation". The final evaluation after the curriculum is fully drawn up is known as "summative evaluation". Essentially curriculum evaluation means "the collection and provision of evidence, on the basis of which decisions can be taken about the feasibility, effectiveness and educational value of curricula". In simple terms curriculum evaluation aims to find out whether:- - the curriculum can be implemented with the available resources, both physical and human (feasibility), - the target group of students can learn effectively from the curriculum (effectiveness), - and curriculum offers education of value to the target group of students (educational value). Today, every modern curriculum development model has built into it formative as well as summative evaluation. Essentially this means that a school curriculum should not be sent to the schools for implementation without undertaking a proper formative and summative evaluation. The Sri Lanka school curricula are unique in the sense that they are not subjected to any evaluation at any stage of development! Designing a curriculum 1. Does it suit the teacher? - his/her knowledge, skills, attitudes, pedagogical training etc. 2. Is content most suitable for the target group of students? - knowledge, skills and values of most worth to the target group of students. 3. Can the target group of students learn effectively from the curriculum? - nature of students - ability, social background etc. 4. What methods of teaching are most effective to achieve the objectives? - methods that provide not only knowledge but also skills, attitudes and values. 5. Do aims and objectives suit the targeted students and society? - educational targets of the curriculum to suit modern times. 6. Has the curriculum been evaluated? - feasibility, effectiveness and educational value of the curriculum. It is against this brief theoretical background discussed so far that I intend to assess the ADB school curricula. At the very outset it has to be pointed out that the science and mathematics curricula produced with the Canadian experts have now been drastically changed. The major reason that contributed to this situation was that the curriculum developers did not consider clearly the six significant questions posed above. It is a known fact that the Sri Lankan students perform poorly in Mathematics. The Canadian experts pointed out that the solution was to introduce electronic calculators. I may cite from a paper prepared by the Canadian experts. "The purpose of computation is to solve problems. Thus, although computation is important in mathematics and in daily life, our technological age requires us to rethink how computation is done today. Almost all complex computation today is done by calculators and computers. In many daily situations, answers are computed mentally or estimates are sufficient, and paper-and-pencil algorithms are useful when the computation is reasonably straightforward. It is important to teach children a variety of ways to compute, as well as to show the usefulness of calculators in solving problems containing large numbers or requiring complex calculations... Nevertheless, paper-and-pencil computation cannot dominate the curriculum or there will be insufficient time for children to learn other, more important, mathematics they need now and in the future". At first the local experts opposed this view. However the Canadians maintained that since the Government supplied more than 10 text books to each student free of charge, it should be able to provide a solar electronic calculator as well. They pointed out that the cost of a calculator would be about Rs. 75.00 when purchased in bulk. The local experts then agreed to this suggestion and Years 6 to 11 mathematics curriculum was drawn up on this basis. After the Canadians left, the entire mathematics curriculum was re-examined critically by the Ministry. The local experts decided to drastically change it. The present plan is to introduce and use electronic calculators only in one class. It would appear that the Canadian consultants were not given proper advice and guidance by the local experts. Even to date the Ministry of Education has not drawn up Years 10 and 11 Mathematics Curriculum. Recently the National Institute of Education (NIE) gave a contract to a Mathematics Department in a university to draw up this curriculum. This Department drew up a list of topics but the experts at the NIE felt that it was not up to expected standards. The reason was that Pure Mathematicians know the subject but not Curriculum Theory. However the NIE had to pay a large sum of money for this work. Years 6 to 11 Science Curriculum, drawn up under the leadership of Canadian experts, has also been completely changed and revised. Originally a curriculum under the theme "Science" was drawn up. When the local experts later found that the present trend throughout the world is to teach "Science and Technology" at this level, they decided to draw up a new curriculum. This was accomplished under the leadership of a leading engineer. It is once again not in keeping with modern curriculum theory. The major weakness of all school curricula drawn up under the ADB project is that the curriculum developers have not utilised modern curriculum theory to build the curricula. They have not even stuck to the modern definition of "Curriculum" which states that it is a collection of learning experiences designed to achieve educational objectives. Instead they have prepared a list of topics which is a "syllabus". This indeed was the situation before 1949. As indicated earlier, Ralph Tyler changed this practice in 1949 to a collection of learning experiences. Modern curriculum developers have further developed this model to facilitate easy planning at each stage. It is relevant to look at the Sri Lankan process of Curriculum Planning in the light of modern trends. First puts it very succinctly. "We distinguish three closely interrelated elements in curriculum planning. First there are the objectives we are after as a result of our teaching: the qualities of mind, the knowledge, skills, values that we wish pupils to acquire. Secondly, there is the programme of activities and work, the plan of what we as teachers and our pupils as learners do to achieve these objectives. This will consist of an outline of the instruction, the discussions, the visits, the exercises, the laboratory work, and so on, that are used. Thirdly, there is the content or subject matter of these activities, what ground is being covered in them in the effort to reach our objectives. Adequate planning of a curriculum demands first a set of clear objectives that constitute the point of the whole enterprise, and then a programme of activities with an appropriate content as the means to the desired ends. The term curriculum would apply most appropriately to the programme of activities, to the course to be run by pupils in being educated". Given below is the format of the plan of a unit in the Year 9 Science Curriculum. I shall take this as a typical format of the curricula produced under the ADB project. 1. Unit title In the Introduction to this curriculum, it is emphasised that "it is the responsibility of the school and the subject teacher to organise the teaching-learning situation by interpreting meaningfully to the student the problematic situations, the concepts and how these are related to every day life of the student". The stark fact is that this responsibility is indeed that of the curriculum developer and not the hapless teacher. Research into curriculum implementation indicates that a curriculum fails at implementation level if it is not fully interpreted for the teacher. I may cite from the National Curriculum in England to drive home this point. "The ways in which the attainment targets and statements of attainment are to be taught are set out in programmes of study. Teachers and schools are bound to follow these; they give more information to teachers about contents, methods, and approaches". The type of curriculum drawn up in Sri Lanka is identified by modern curriculum developers as an "armchair curriculum". Such a curriculum offers mainly untested and untried suggestions for the teacher. The very word "proposed" indicates that the curriculum has not been evaluated. Evaluation of Curricula Sad to say, not a single school curriculum under the ADB project was evaluated by the curriculum developers. They have even failed to apply fully at least Ralph Tyler's curriculum development model which is fifty years old! However, in January 1999 these curricula will be introduced in Years 6 and 9. Essentially it will be an attempt by the Ministry of Education to force upon the students untried, untested and unexplored curricula. When one reads the daily papers one comes across a lot of claims made by politicians on the reforms that will be introduced from January 1999. What is the validity of these claims when the curricula are not evaluated and the teachers not prepared for the task of proper implementation? Can we predict accurately the outcome? The present situation The Selection Board appointed by the Ministry of Education selected as foreign consultants a Canadian Consultancy firm. It has to be noted that the Canadian firm received greater recognition than other bidders such as the British Council. It is worth pointing out that USA and UK lead in Curriculum Theory and Practice. Comparatively, Canada has not made a worthwhile contribution in this field. This is reflected in the quality of their output. As funds were provided by the ADB, Sri Lanka could have obtained the best foreign expertise without difficulty. Needless to say, the "National interest" should have been the criterion in making the selections. One local firm fielded a team that consisted of those who were responsible for the ill-fated 1972 educational reforms. The local consultants selected were from this firm and consisted mainly of retired Regional Directors of Education. Some had retired over 10 years ago. They had served as educational administrators. Their knowledge in the Theory and Practice of Education was limited to what many had studied for their Post-Graduate Diploma in Education, at least 30 years ago. It is surprising that some of those selected did not possess even that qualification. They were also not exposed to the modern Theories in Education. The education reforms demanded the application of the most modern Curriculum Theory and Practice. The Canadian firm and the local counterparts have produced curricula based on Curriculum Theory that was in use 50 years ago. Had they used Kerr's or still better, Malcolm Skilbeck's Curriculum Development Model, they would certainly have produced excellent curricula. Phase II of the ADB project aimed to introduce reforms in Pre-Service Teacher Education, School Management and Examinations. After advertising twice in 1996, the same Canadian Consultancy Firm and some more retired Regional Directors, in addition to those who served under Phase I, were selected. A striking feature was that many of these Regional Directors did not posses even a day's experience in Teacher Training Colleges! Surprisingly, two members of the Selection Board found employment as Consultants a month or two after the commencement of the Project! To sum up, the outcome of Phase I of the ADB Project which dealt with the secondary School Curricula is far below the expected standard. Not a single document under Phase II has been released. The World Bank Project has not even selected the personnel to carry out the work. The ADB Project was a colossal waste of money. Every Canadian consultant was apparently paid more than Rs. 300,000 per month. Every local consultant was to be paid at the rate of US $1000 per month but the Consultancy firms may not have paid this amount to them. The ADB Project raises a very important question as to who would be held accountable for outcomes and results. We may also point out that there is a moral accountability. It appears that self-interest of a few has prevailed over the national interest! Let us hope that the World Bank Project will not suffer the same fate. |