Janki Rajan
Committee Report
Report of the Committee For Evolving Modalities for Sensitizing Teachers for
Integrating Children from Weaker Sections of Society in Private Schools
The
Chief Minister of
1. Dr.Janaki Rajan, Reader,
Central Institute of Education,
2. Dr. M. C. Mathur, Director, SCERT Member
2. Ms. Vibha Parthasarathi,
Former Principal, Sardar Patel Vidyalaya
Member
3. Dr. Jitender Nagpal,
Psychiatrist, Vimhans Member
4. Dr. Sarwat Ali, Senior Lecturer, IASE, Jamia Milia Islamia
Member
The Committee held three meetings in all, apart from
intensive consultations over telephone and internet. A total of around 85
private school teachers, heads of schools, members of management, researchers
on inclusion and NGO representatives were consulted before the drafting of the
Report. The Minutes of the meetings and persons consulted is given in Annexure
I, II, and III.
1. Background
The Committee observed that there exists considerable
confusion among teachers and management regarding the background of the
decision to include 25% of children from backward sections of society into
private schools. At each consultation, the background had to be presented
before the Committee could move forward. The private school representatives
were also unhappy about the ‘force’ for integration. Many felt that if they
could do this gradually, and of their own volition, the integration would be more
successful. The Committee’s first recommendation therefore is that the
Government of Delhi must prepare a background note for all private school
stakeholders: Management, School Heads, Teachers and Parents including the copy
of the Judgment of the High Court.
2. Time Frame
The Members of the Committee were of the view that integration of children from
backward sections of society is a historic first step towards realizing the
recommendations of Kothari Commission (1964) and the
National Policy on Education and its Review (1986 and 1990) towards a Common
School system(CSS). Common school system is equality of entitlements based on
non-discrimination: that all children are entitled to equal opportunities to
education It envisages that children, rich and poor
would get equitable quality of education as laid down in the preamble of the
constitution of this country. This step also realizes the much cherished
educational principle of inclusion. The Committee was of the view that
inclusion benefits not only the children from backward sections of society, but
equally, if not more so, benefits children from mainstream society. Given this
significance, it is important to underline that the task of educating the
children of backward sections in an integrated classroom in a private school is
a very complex one and deserves to be planned and worked out in detail. The
Committee strongly recommends that pre-requisite for integration is a
systematic, informed sensitization program for all stakeholders: School
Managements, Heads of Schools, Teachers, Counselors, fee-paying parents as well
as parents of children from backward sections. Integration will then be ensured
the success it deserves.
3. Prevailing views of Private School Teachers and Heads of Schools
3.1 Commitment towards social responsibilities: The Committee was heartened
to note that the majority of private school teachers they consulted were aware
of their social responsibilities and had stated that they welcome the inclusion
of the children from backward sections. Many of the private schools also have
been fulfilling this responsibility by offering Bridge Programs, afternoon
support classes for children of backward sections. Many also teach the children
of their own class IV employees free of cost in the main school. The Committee
was of the view that these experiences of the schools will be of great use in
the integration of children. They, however, had some legitimate concerns. Their
concerns and the views of the committee on each are given below:
3.2 Level at which integration could /may be more successful: The
teachers were most confident about successful integration if it happened in the
Nursery class. They reported that when they had tried integration on their own,
if children are taken beyond class I, integration had not been successful. The
Committee considers this a valid concern. At any event, in most private
schools, most of the intake happens at Nursery level. Very few children are
taken in at higher levels, except Class IX and XI. After due consideration, the
Committee is of the view that the integration to take place at Nursery, Class
IX and XI. If required, the 25% can be made up by increasing the intake at
Nursery to compensate for prospective non-inclusion at higher classes
admissions. For Classes IX and XI, entrance test for English and subject
competency can be held.
3.3 Continuous additional support for the children of weaker sections within
the school: Some additional hours for supporting the children, especially
to strengthen their English comprehension and speaking skills, study skills,
support for home work would be required. School Managements must make this
arrangement possible; otherwise the children from backward sections would
simply drop out. Counseling services for both sets of children would also need
to be provided to further strengthen their strengths and address problems-be
they academic, emotional, pychological, or, everyday
problems and issues.
3.4 Support from home: Some teachers were of the view that parents from
backward sections are not really equipped to provide the support children need
to while studying in private school. The child does not have space and quiet to
study. However, some teachers reported experiences to the contrary. They felt
that parents of backward sections are deeply conscious of the opportunity for
their child to study in a good private school and go the extra mile to ensure
their children’s participation. The Committee agreed with the latter view.
Teachers observed that strategies for teaching children who do not get home
support in studies are not available. The Committee was in broad agreement with
this view and strongly recommends that teacher education institutes reform
their curricula so that issues and class-room strategies for inclusion become
compulsory part of pre-service teacher education. University Departments of
Education need to take up Research in this area However, the Committee has also
put together some available readings and modules which are annexed.
3.5 Educating Parents: Most teachers observed that parents of children
from the fee-paying sections of society objected to their children sitting
together with a child from backward sections of society. The Members of the
committee felt that the school is not an isolated institution, and must look to
educating the parents as well, as they do on other issues such as regularity.
Parents must know that inclusion is not a philanthropic principle, but a sound
educational principle for all children.
3.6 Authenticity of Income certificates: Private school teachers
observed that there seems to be some fuzziness regarding the income
certificates of parents. These appear to be easily available and parents who
have been paying fees for the elder child are now coming with an income
certificate showing lower income for admission for the second child. The
Committee was of the view that the Government needs to ensure that income
certificate issuance is authentic and eliminate its misuse.
3.7 Problems in integration in higher classes and Adolescence related
issues: The teachers and some members of the Committee were concerned that
integration could be problematic at Class IX and XI as children were also going
through adolescence related problems. After much discussion, the Committee
agreed that the advantages of integration at these levels overweigh the
developmental concerns. At these stages, subject based teaching-learning
dominates schooling. A child from backward sections who has a scholastic
aptitude could benefit hugely. Dr. Nagpal, a member
has kindly provided teacher support materials. The Delhi YUVA Module may also
be used for training teachers in Classes IX and XI. The Committee was of the
view that, once teachers are sensitized, along with the support of Counselors,
the integration should be smooth.
3.8 Tuitions: Some teachers stated that almost all children in private
schools also take tuitions to cope with the CBSE Syllabus. The child from
backward sections cannot afford this, and would lag behind. The Committee
considered the matter to be crucial, but concluded that an effective school
should not really be depending on tuitions. Perhaps the biggest benefit of the
integration would be that teachers would begin to use classroom practices
appropriate for children of backward sections. These are really also good
pedagogic practices that would benefit all children and would preclude the need
for tuitions for all children. The Committee note with regret that not much is
available by way of classroom based research and once again re-iterates the need
for Universities and Research Agencies to study and come up with a wide range
of good classroom practices.
3.8 Finances: The teachers also raised issues of costs of uniform,
books, tours, picnics, annual day etc. The Committee restrains itself from giving
any views on this matter as a separate Sub-Committee has been set up for
looking into these aspects. However, one strong suggestion from the teachers
merits consideration. Nearly all the private school teachers suggested that the
government school teachers also need to be trained on effective teaching and
the system re-structure itself to ensure accountability. The Committee agreed
with the suggestion.
4. Modalities for Sensitization
4.1 Base exists in many private schools
Subsequent to the discussions with the teachers, the Committee also consulted
some teachers who had rich experience of successful integration. The Committee
then concluded that the sensitizing the classroom teacher is vital to
successful integration. The Committee noted with satisfaction that the majority
of the teachers consulted were not against integration.
4.2 Prevailing Stereotypes about children from backward classes
The Committee noted, during discussions with teachers, that certain stereotypes
do appear to prevail among the majority of teachers, who appear to believe in
some inherent superior capability of a child from the affluent class and do not
expect to see this among children from backward classes. The backwardness and
poor economic condition of these children have been conflated into their
intellectual abilities. Research all over the world has shown that this is not
the case. Intelligence can be found as much in children from poor homes as in
rich homes. Difficulties in learning can be a barrier in both homes. It is true
that adverse environment, poor nutrition are additional barriers for children
from backward sections, but they are not insurmountable. Children from backward
sections have tremendous capabilities that their very environs have also
rendered them-curiosity, lack of cynicism, industriousness, resourcefulness,
ability to make do with very little that is available and the creativity and
ingenuity that emerges from this. It is for the teacher to draw these out.
4.3 Prevailing Teacher Mind sets
The Committee was however distressed to note that teachers in private schools,
themselves from the middle and upper middle class backgrounds identified so
strongly with the fee paying children, that their
articulations showed that they have in their minds two kinds of children-ours
and theirs. Children from backward class of society were described as lacking
in hygiene, having lice, inability to use toilets, slow, use objectionable
language, lack English language skills, have slow writing skills. Except for
the last two, the rest are not necessarily true, and easily remedied.
This mind set would be the greatest barrier to integration. The class
teacher’s approval is so crucial to children, that there is no hope for the
child from weaker section to feel valued unless the teacher views him or her as
one of her own. Feeling superiority of the fee paying children, a legacy that
some may bring from their homes needs also to be addressed by the class
teacher. Even a hint of sympathy, knowingly or unknowingly communicated by the
teacher to the fee paying child and marginalisation
of the child from backward section of society would lead to peer
related problems. Sensitization to alter this mind set of the teacher must be
the back bone of their training.
5. Policies, Preparation and Sensitization Modalities
5.1 The Committee recommends the following
1. Make non-discrimination a school
policy, indeed an essential spirit of school environment.
2. Prepare a checklist of dos and
don’ts
3. Prepare teachers to take extra care
with children from backward sections
4. Orient teachers on subject teaching
skills
5. Orient teachers on when and how to
introduce English and Hindi
6. Orient teachers on learning and
cognitive theories of Ruby Payne, Vygotsky , Feurenstein, Pigaet , Toto Chan ,
Gijubhai Badheka , Tolstoy
farm and Nai Talim
7.
8. Literature collated by the
researchers in the Committee and invited expert and placed in the Annexures to be printed and given to all teachers.
9. Impress upon teachers that all these
skills are as much useful for ‘our’ children as ‘them’.
10. Devise methods for teachers to introspect: What do I know? What do I not
know?
10. Help them appreciate between mere verbalization
and internalized learning
11. Orient teachers on group activities
12. Orient teachers on observation
skills and how to interact with children with respect
13. Orient teachers on some of the
methods used for children with special needs-they’re equally useful for all
children
14. Specify content: language, numeracy, expressive arts, hand-on activities, play,
co-operative activities, peer grouping, recognizing innovation, creativity,
building school climate for inclusion
15. Orient teachers in general to
communicate with all the children
5.
Resource Support for Training
The Committee recommends that:
5.1
Given the expertise of several Members of the Committee, Ms. Vibha Parthasarathy, Dr. Sarwat Ali and Dr. Jitendra Nagpal may act as the Empowered Advisory team. They may
co-opt more persons as and when required.
A team of teachers who have successfully implemented integration identified by
the Advisory team may act as Key Resource Team for the
training process. They may in turn identify more resource persons and orient
them to conduct the training.
Videos and films on inclusion are available with some of the former teachers.
These may be collated and used in training. The Committee also recommends that
films on specific issues also be got prepared. Eg. Instance
of showing finger dexterity in middle class child through writing, and perhaps
through skillful use of rope, or thread by children from backward sections.
This will help demonstrate to the teachers that children from backward sections
are equally if not more capable of learning.
5.2. Training Schedule
The Committee assumes that on an average, there would be 4 teachers from each
of the 1200 private schools, i.e. 4,800 teachers. 30 teachers to be trained at
each centre, 30 centers, within private schools may be identified, and training
completed in 5 phases. A total of 45 Resource Persons the approved by the
Sub-Committee may conduct the workshops. The workshops may be held in private
schools serving as Centres
5. 3 Resource materials
The Resource Materials, films, teacher handbook of Course content, with
readings recommendedabove and others that the
Advisory team may find appropriate may all be got prepared by the Key Resource
team.
5 . 4 Work shops
One day workshop for Management Representatives
* One day workshop for Principals and Heads of Primary and Pre-primary sections
* Teachers to have 17 days workshop interspersed as follows:
* Five days induction, + 3 days after one term, + 3days after second term, +3
days after third term for review, + 3 days for planning for the next year.
The Committee is indebted to the large number of teachers, Heads, Principals,
researchers who so generously shared their experiences so openly and candidly.
It is these interactions that have made the preparing of this report possible.
The Convener is deeply indebted to each Member of the Committee for having
worked so cohesively, and enriching this report with their wealth of
professional experience and personal commitment.
Dr.Janaki Rajan, Dr. M.C.Mathur, Ms. Vibha Parthsarathi, Dr. Sarwat Ali, Dr.Jitendra Nagpal
Annexure :
I, II, III Minutes of the Meetings
IV-XII Modules and Materials for training