primary school teachers the twists and turns of everyday practice

Version 20 Oct 08, edited final
prohibiting schools from conducting examinations and inspectors from asking for
examination results (M P Vijay Kumar, interviewed on 26 May 2008).
As soon as I joined as a teacher in 1994, I underwent 20 days of training in joyful learning. It was
exciting but did not relate to our classroom. There was a lot of singing, dancing and storytelling,
but there was no learning. I found it difficult to use these approaches all the time. I felt that this
approach did not help me reach all the children. Also, I found it difficult to tell stories to children in
Class 1…
Later I was asked to teach Grade 3 in the Corporation Primary School in North Chennai. In the
first few days it became clear to me that children in my class had difficulties in writing and
reading. I did a quick test and found that over 70 per cent of my students did not even know the
alphabets and they were already in Class 3!
Training is so distant from our actual classroom needs (…) that is why the foundation is not there.
I used to submit lesson plans every week (because I was required to do so) but it was not related to
the actual classroom situation or what I actually did in class.
Things changed in 2004 after the ABL programme was introduced. For me training now means
doing things on my own and with other teachers and learning from those experiences.
(Source: Interview with a teacher in Chennai, December 2007).
As this booklet was being drafted, newspapers reported that teachers in Tamil Nadu
were protesting and had even called for a strike. Teachers who were involved in the
Chennai city programme point out that the scaling up was done a bit too quickly.
Apparently, one of the reasons for the protest was that the TL materials prepared for
Classes 3 and 4 were not adequately tested. A teacher leader who is unhappy with
the ABL programme asked: ‘How can they expect teachers to be seated on the floor
all the time? Older teachers and those who have health problems cannot do
this…what is wrong in having a table and chair where the teacher can sit?’ This may
sound trivial, but has become a common refrain in the state. Many teachers and
administrators, who for years have been used to a teacher-centred approach, find it
difficult to change their ways and work their world around children.
Many commentators argue that there is nothing fundamentally different about ABL.
The changes are cosmetic. All that has been done is that the textual content has now
been transferred onto cards, which are prepared centrally by the education
department. This by itself cannot make the difference. The real difference will take
place when teachers engage in an approach that is flexible and suits the pace and
ability of the learner. Merely dividing the children into groups and giving them
cards does not result in peer learning. We heard that, barring a few schools, the old
mindset of the teachers has not changed. We came away convinced that this issue
needs to be addressed seriously and this is essential to ensure that ABL takes root
and is not discontinued due to change in leadership, just as the Nali Kali programme
was discontinued in Karnataka. 10
Whereas the state government in Tamil Nadu has clearly engaged with the issue of
teacher-training and experimented with different models and strategies for
10 The ‘Nali Kali’ programme in Karnataka was another attempt during the mid- to late- 1990s at
adapting the Rishi Valley approach in government schools in Mysore district. The programme started
as a pilot in one entire block (HD Kote) of the district but was discontinued when there was change in
leadership of the programme.
56