Here are the Three E's of CCE:
Empowers teachers to decide as per individual needs,
Enables facilitators to individualize instruction,
Engages each learner in his/her (s)pace.
Till 17th century the world was cocooned in its comfort zone of educating in specific skills, handing over family professions across g+enerations, evolving, refining and excelling in their acclaimed vocation, complementing each other to a holistic emergence of the society, by a disciplined code of conduct that respected equally all classes, not trespassing in each other’s specialized area. The syllabus contained all essential knowledge which was perfected in a graded level of achievement that the trade required with a strong network of communication confined to the group.
18th century dawned on the world bringing forth the industrial revolution, machines and mass production. It automatically had its imprints in education sector. The rulers needed human resources not to create but to store and account since the machines cloned and automated production for the societal needs. There were just two classes for the majority, the rulers (administrators) and the clerks, though the minority of inventors and the businessmen kept their own counsel. The security for the common man was to educate for a desk job and be a steady bread winner for the family. Traditional education was replaced by mass education. It was not without its advantages. Great doors and windows opened letting in the global context conquer the local dominance in education. The advent of printing press flooded the schools with text books which catered to a syllabus that suited the majority requirement. The three R’s constituted the basic literacy program.
The teacher and the taught divide began as the teacher devised an average way out to cope with reconciling “the one to many” vis-à-vis a common curriculum. The text books factored as the main source for a common test at a common point of time and created the great divide of achievers vs. non achievers. The teacher got away with an accountability of syllabus coverage in terms of the textual transliteration and the pass percentage of one-third quality. The teacher need not know the person the student was, nor vice versa. Atleast the child remembered the teacher who was unique for him/her but the child was nowhere, totally forgotten in the rat race between syllabus coverage and examinations, unless (s)he climbed the top of the ladder for everyone to see. Being assessed by one time examination and branded useless led to many an unpleasant ends for those who could not manage their emotional quotient.
The succeeding centuries of the jet age increased the scope of knowledge for survival, as the competition increased with all round expansion augured by scientific and technological inventions as well as modern warfare which enriched automatically the knowledge span for curriculum makers. The pressure increased automatically since the time span remained a constant as against the knowledge explosion. New jargon of “bookworm” described the intelligent learner who committed knowledge to memory even if it were by rote. The retention span restricted to culmination of examination and the assessments were wide off the mark by standards of sustainable quality.
21st century with all its worldwide webs has crowned itself as the knowledge age and there is no looking back. But if education retains the concept of knowledge as had been hitherto comprehended the doomsday for students could not be far behind. However the awakening has crept in and a century old recommendations of education commissions have found their way in systemic changes in the country. Political will has equally stood by the educational reforms.
At last the child who is the real owner of education has become the educator’s main concern and child centric education is what the educationists are advocating. It is all well to say that the child placed in the custody of every teacher is important and every child as to that. But how does a single teacher contend with the unrealistic teacher pupil ratio ranging from 1:30 in elite schools to 1:60 of not so elite schools? Also how does the teacher divide himself or herself into as much diversity as an inclusive education would allow?
A viable solution to such questions as these could easily baffle anyone and remain an enigma among the practitioners. It is ventured to offer a practical roadmap to teachers who are preferred to be renamed as facilitators to strike a balance in an apparently impossible situation in every class room.
Yes! CCE could be a very powerful tool in the hands of a teacher who is conscientiously endeavouring to individualize instruction, so as to make the class room transaction all inclusive both from the human and the content angles.
How does CCE individualize instruction?
The main characteristics of CCE are:
It treats the individual supreme in learning. It is not about being better than someone else on any day but about being better oneself today than yesterday.
It expects the learner to be assessed in the ladder of the levels of learning.
It therefore allows for the individual’s pace of learning and caters to the learner’s interest.
It provides for feedback to the learner and the facilitator for analysis and refinement.
It empowers the teacher to make the right decisions on mutual consensus with stakeholders.
Empowerment of teachers
A) Systemic provisions
1) No detention for eight years:
At least eight years to space the program giving room for learner’s pace.
Enough scope for exploring possible pedagogy to suit individual need and change strategies.
2) Board examination optional and limited to 30% weightage:
At least 70% internal assessments vested with the teacher.
Scope for assessment along the depth of learning process.
Increased attention to micro details of content owing to limiting syllabus in equal time frames.
Freedom to choose from a wide variety of assessment tools removing the ennui of a onetime made for all examination.
Teaching to learn than teaching to test.
Freedom to innovate and improvise.
3) Documentation:
Flexibility and variety in maintaining accounts of student engagement and achievement.
Leaving space for learner’s reflection and auto refinement.
Easy access to technological intervention.
4) Training:
Efforts to increase awareness and enable capacity building for teachers.
Pooling in support of stake holders from management, society and parents by organized advocacy programs.
Creating teacher support and learner support resources.
B) Translating empowerment into action and accountability
It is imperative that the teachers understand the implications of this empowerment in the proper perspective for right action and appropriate outcomes. Actionable implications of the empowerment clauses are:
No detention is not automatic promotion sans learning.
Comprehensive assessment determinant of aptitudes and interests and assists pedagogy by way of right choice from a diverse set of learning experiences for a given learning outcome.
Comprehensive assessment is not disjoint and discrete but enables the continuum of assessment by using strength to address weakness.
Comprehensive assessment is not complete if all stakeholders are not taken on board at a time.
Sustainability of education is not possible without comprehensive assessment as it makes the real value continuum of life dense and enriched.
The technological resources of the knowledge age are tapped for addressing the issues of unrealistic teacher pupil ratio.
Variety in assessment tools is yet another secret to evolve easy feedback techniques towards classifying the heterogeneous group of learners at appropriate levels.
A thorough understanding of the depth of content delivery and logical planning integrating laterally formative assessment technique is totally the teacher’s responsibility.
If all these are in place, infusing the virtue of dedication and commitment perhaps there may emerge the holistic teacher, a facilitator in the true sense and vouch for each individual child placed under his/her care.
Comments