ASSESSMENT OF PRE-PRIMARY EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH DISTRICT OF SIKKIM

-          Dhan Bahadur Subba,

Assistant Director HRDD/South

 

The type of education designed for children prior to their formal entry into the education system is referred to as pre-primary education. Pre-primary education targets children aged 3 to 6 years and is regarded as a pivotal phase. This stage offers children the chance to experience a miniature community setting where they engage in daily work and play with peers of similar and differing ages. Through this environment, potential biases and social difficulties are preemptively addressed. Furthermore, pre-primary education serves to prepare children for formal schooling and elevates their performance standards in primary classes. This form of education holds significant value for the physical, emotional, and cognitive growth of children, particularly those coming from less-than-ideal home environments. The advancement of a nation is intricately tied to the progression of its youngest citizens, prompting UNICEF to use children's development as a gauge for national advancement.

The core objective of pre-primary education is the all-encompassing growth of the child. This development encompasses various facets, as delineated in the book "A Guide for Nursery School Teachers" published by NCERT in 1978:

1. Development of Physical Health and Motor Skills;
2. Development of Good Health Habits;
3. Development of Desirable Social Attitude and Manners;
4. Development of Emotional Maturity;
5. Development of Aesthetic Values;
6. Stimulation of Intellectual Curiosity;
7. Encouraging Independence and Creativity; and
8. Development of Language.

In Sikkim, pre-primary education is dispensed by both government entities and private institutions, including the Human Resource Development Department, Social Justice, Empowerment and Welfare Department, and private schools. The South District alone houses 265 ICDS Centres managed by the Women and Child Division of the Social Justice, Empowerment, and Welfare Department of the Sikkim Government. These centers provide care and education for pre-primary children. However, the instruction provided in these centers doesn't meet the criteria for formal education and doesn't qualify for admission to Grade I in Government Schools. Private schools also play a role in offering pre-primary education, with 109 such schools in the South District. They offer playgroups, nursery classes, Lower Kindergarten (L/KG), and Upper Kindergarten (U/KG) levels of pre-primary education.

The Human Resource Development Department is the largest contributor to pre-primary education in the district, encompassing around 56% of children enrolled in government schools. Pre-primary education is seamlessly integrated into the formal school structure, with every school having a dedicated pre-primary section. A teacher, known as the "School Mother," is assigned to instruct these young learners. It's suggested that children should ideally be five years old when entering pre-primary classes, setting them up for enrollment in the regular school system at around the age of six, after completing a year in pre-primary class. 

As mentioned, the education provided by ICDS centers isn't considered preschool education according to government schools in the district. Consequently, whether children attended ICDS centers or not, they must enroll in pre-primary classes. This situation contributes to an accumulation of older children within the school system, a factor associated with academic struggles and dropouts.  

Hence, embarking on a succinct inquiry into the age distribution of children registered in pre-primary classes within government schools is deemed exceptionally valuable. This research endeavor involved the meticulous selection of 66.82% of all government schools in the district, accomplished through a rigorous process of random sampling. The study, which focuses on the age distribution of children participating in pre-primary classes within government schools, was executed through a thoughtfully chosen sample of schools. This strategic approach entailed the inclusion of 77.54% of schools from Namchi Sub-division and 49.42% of schools from Ravang Sub-division, effectively enhancing the depth of insight into the age-related dynamics among children enrolled in pre-primary education. The primary objective of this undertaking was to aggregate age-specific enrollment data specifically relevant to pre-primary classes. The information collected was meticulously organized, taking into account factors such as gender, age, and sub-division. The subsequent table, presented in this context, furnishes a comprehensive overview of the dispersion of children among different age groups who are actively participating in pre-primary education within government schools.

Sub-Division	<5 years		5 years		6 years		7 years		8 years
	B	G	B	G	B	G	B	G	B	G
Namchi	6.99	7.43	19.41	19.13	14.09	12.76	6.88	6.21	2.94	1.39
Ravang	4.50	5.18	16.37	17.05	15.69	16.23	8.05	7.91	3.27	2.46
District	6.27	6.78	18.53	18.53	14.55	13.76	7.22	6.70	3.04	1.70

 

Sub-Division	9 years		10 years		11 years		12 years
	B	G	B	G	B	G	B	G
Namchi	0.94	0.78	0.61	0.28	0.00	0.06	0.11	0.00
Ravang	0.82	0.82	0.68	0.27	0.27	0.41	0.00	0.00
District	0.91	0.79	0.63	0.28	0.08	0.16	0.08	0.00

Source – School Report Card 2007

The children attending the pre-primary class represent a diverse range of ages, spanning from 4 to 12 years. When considering the entry age into the preschool system as <6 years, the district only accounts for 50.11% of children within the appropriate age range. This implies that a significant 49.89% of children enrolled in pre-primary classes within government schools are actually older than the ideal age.

As previously stated, the educators responsible for instructing pre-primary classes in the State are referred to as School Mothers, a designation reserved exclusively for women. The process for appointing school mothers is straightforward, as candidates are not required to undergo competitive examinations or interviews for selection. Appointments are made solely at the discretion of area MLAs. During the early 1980s, a considerable number of school mothers were hired with an education level below matriculation, given that the position was remunerated on a fixed-pay basis at that time. Subsequently, the requirements were revised, and individuals with at least a matriculation qualification or a pre-primary teacher training certificate received a standardized pay scale. 

The State Government has established a specific quota for school mothers who exhibit higher qualifications in the primary teacher selection test. Consequently, qualified and proficient school mothers are promoted to the role of primary teachers, while those with lower qualifications remain at the pre-primary level. This situation has led to a decline in the quality of pre-primary education within the state, an issue that cannot be rectified easily. Moreover, analyzing the results of annual examinations for the pre-primary class over the past three years reveals an average failure rate of 46% each year.

 The educational qualifications of school mothers within the district are also a cause for concern. To address this, the subsequent table has been included in this document.

Sub-Division	Percentage of School Mothers by Qualification
	Under Matric	Class X	Higher Sec	Class XII	Graduate
Namchi Total	24.67	45.33	3.33	24.67	2.00
Ravang Total	19.48	49.35	2.60	23.38	5.19
District Total	22.91	46.70	3.08	24.23	3.08

Source: Teachers’ Bio-data Book 2007

The presented table highlights that the majority of school mothers fall under the matriculate category. Notably, 22.91% of school mothers in the district still possess below the matriculation level of education.

In the course of school visits, it has been observed that pre-primary classes in government schools are not exclusively assigned to school mothers. Instead, primary teachers are also deployed to teach these classes. While school administrators argue that primary teachers are more qualified and efficient, and thus better suited for the task, this practice cannot be endorsed due to the distinct nature of pre-primary and primary education levels. The management of classrooms, child interaction, teaching methodologies, and more, significantly differ between pre-primary and primary levels. Technically, primary teachers may lack the competence required for teaching pre-primary classes.

Teaching and learning processes are intricate and require proper training. Entrusting a teaching role to an individual without proper training is not advisable. Pre-primary education, often termed early childhood education, is expected to introduce foundational concepts like the 3 R's (reading, writing, arithmetic). However, formal methods for introducing these concepts are discouraged, with emphasis placed on activities and play-based approaches. 

An observation has been made that the assessment of children attending pre-primary classes in government schools is conducted in a formative manner, which may not be conducive to their learning experience. It is recommended that the assessment methods for pre-primary children should be continuous and comprehensive. Additionally, the retention of children in this class should be avoided.

A suggestion is put forth to categorize the pre-primary class into three groups based on the children's ages within a classroom, facilitating multilevel teaching. The proposed age-based segregation could be structured as follows:

• Children aged 3 years in Pre-primary - “C” Group
• Children aged 4 years in Pre-primary - “B” Group
• Children aged 5 years in Pre-primary - “A” Group

This arrangement ensures that a child enters the primary level at precisely 6 years old and prevents the accumulation of overage children in the pre-primary level. 

***

References:

1.       Safaya, Dr. R.N., Current Problems in Indian Education, p. 23

2.       DOABA Pre-Primary and Nursery Teachers’ Training/Education Guide, p. A-72

3.       The Education Commission (1964-66)

4.       A Guide for Nursery School Teachers, 1978

5.       Teachers’ Bio Data Book 2007

6.       School Report Cards DISE

 

(A paper written in 2007)

 

 

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: Still a misunderstood concept

Formative Assessment is solely a diagnostic process. It is an informal way of checking the effectiveness of one's own instructional approaches by a teacher during teaching learning processes. Now you must be thinking that if it is solely for teachers then why the teachers are ask to give grade to children (FA grades).

One example - You have planted different types of chrysanthemum in flower pots. Every morning you go to your nursery to give cow dung water to each plant. Your main objective of visiting nursery is to put cow dung water in every pot; however while doing this you will also see some of the plants are becoming healthy and growing satisfactorily (as per your expectation). You may also see some plants are growing average and some are below average. In this case, you will grade these plants for your own purpose to provide necessary supports to each plant like...

§  This plant needs utmost care because this is growing very poorly;

§  This is growing better than that but it has this problem;

§  This needs supports to get healthy shoot;

§  This is growing satisfactorily I just need to give continuous supports to sustain it's health and growth; and so on.

Here we have to understand that the grades of FA is for "how much children are improving" and the grade we give for SA is for "how much children have improved". FA prevails within the entire classroom/ school process and SA prevails only after the process.

Normally most of the rural schools of Sikkim have less enrolment (I am talking about primary level only). However, in case of more than 30 children, the most effective teaching strategy would be collaborative and cooperative teaching. Adopt this methods, you will find it useful. Moreover, I suggest you to report to the higher authority if you have more than 30 children in one class.

Your expectation for the growth of chrysanthemum plants in your nursery is equivalent to curricular expectations for holistic growth of children in the classroom.

Good day!

Q: How to know or distinguish the students who need remedial teaching?

A: I hope your school has been taking unit test. If so, you will get three types of children every time you evaluate their answer scripts after unit testing -
a. Above average scoring more than 60% marks
b. Average scoring 40-60% marks
c. Below average who scored less than 40%

Now the teacher has to decide (c) group is the most poor with dire need of remedial teaching. The teacher also have to care (b) group because the students in this group also not performed well.

After finishing the grouping of students, the teacher's next activity is to analyse the answer scripts of the students falling under (c) &(b). This analysis guide the teacher to know where a child needs remediation. Suppose an answer script of a student of Class X in English subject shows very less score in Writing Section then the teacher has to focus on writing practice during remedial class. In the same way, an answer script of Class V student in Math subject shows incorrect solutions in Simplification, then the teacher has to make him practice  BODMAS.

However, in doing this the teacher should not neglect the students of group (a) because they too have to sustain their standards. So let them be in the class, participate in group activities designed for remedial teaching. This helps them to revise their lessons and ensure deeper understanding of already learned concept.

PRECAUTION: Do not reveal this grouping to students.
🌹🌹🌹

(The above query is from a dedicated teacher received in my Fb messenger. I thought that other teachers as well may have same query but not being able to communicate. So this post is intended to reach such teachers)

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE, CUT DOWN THE SIZES - The best option!

The children up to the age of 14 years are most vulnerable. They need continuous support and guidance to make them capable of living in the society of multifarious challenges which need a set of the best chosen human resources with ample spaces, tools and equipment. The capabilities of service providers means a lot to ensure this. Thus, if you don't have capabilities to support the children's growth, make them retard.

Although this would be a historical incidence of a country that the most intellectual group of people takes away the children’s fundamental right instead of safeguarding it and nurturing them in a changed environment.

I know the country with best education system like Finland also has the system of making child’re-take the year' who performs the poorest, but the system has its procedures. However, directly favouring the detention system advocating detention can ensure quality learning in children is really a crude and PRIMITIVE idea.

"No detention" doesn't mean that the system has to pass a child without making him/her capable of next higher grade. "No detention" implies that the system is bound to make a child capable of next higher grade compulsorily at the end of an academic session. It is the system which has to work harder to make the child pass rather than to fail a child and held back for a whole academic session. The content of the post "Review of No Detention Policy" reveals that the system has more faith on DETENTION of children to ensure quality learning than on its manpower who are meant for ensuring quality education.

Till date, we have the notion that teachers only held responsible for making a child learn. Now it's time for us to change it. As you know that the actual works of whole education department is done in the school campus. Thus, let's make everyone in the system responsible for ‘making a child learn’. It is the responsibility of Educational Administration to provide relevant logistics that support a teacher to conduct effective teaching, the teacher education institutions need to provide trainings to teachers as per their training needs, the community leaders need to provide good infrastructure that supports children's learning, the parents need to establish close coordination with teachers, so on. I dream a new education system where all sets of stakeholders are made responsible in children's learning.

*****

“Ahh…BaLA” – An ignored story of the most ever successful project of people’s participation

The story goes back to 2009, when a man strongly impressed by BaLA  activities of Himachal Pradesh returned to Sikkim after finishing curricular programme of Diploma in Educational Planning and Administration (DEPA) from National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi. He started propagating the programme in his district (South Sikkim) with utmost zeal and keenness though there was no single penny for this to happen in the schools. He presented the photographs of BaLA activities through power point presentation collected from his DEPA batch mate Mr. Yashwant Depak (Principal Kullu DIET) in every meeting of the school heads. He explained its importance in impacting children’s learning and requested all of them to initiate it through people’s participation. To start with as demo, he requested the then District Project Coordinator of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Shri M.K.Rai to allocate fund from the component ‘Child Friendly Environment’ approved under Civil Works. He wholeheartedly supported the proposal and an exact replication of BaLA activities was created in Bhalukhop Primary School in the same year. The head of schools who supported him first and created the learner-friendly environment in their schools are Smt. Bimla Rai, the then Principal of Temi Senior Secondary School and Shri Sekhar Chettri, the then Headmaster of Melli Gumpa Secondary School.

The concept was well received by the heads of schools but due to lack of fund to execute it, the implementation became very slow. Considering the importance of fund to realize the dream, he included the proposal of BaLA activities in the Annual Plan of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan continuosly for two consecutive years i.e. 2010-11 and 2011-12 when he got transferred to State Project Office of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in 2010. However, the proposal could not get approval in both the years.

The man did not stop yet. He started writing about it in local newspapers. His article titled “School Infrastructure as Additional Learning Resources for Teaching Primary School Children” published in local daily SIKKIM EXPRESS on 8th September 2011 spread a most impacting awareness on the concept among the school heads and educational stakeholders of the state. Some of the schools started working on this by mobilizing fund from among themselves and community, some of them mobilized local panchayats for the resources. In the same year i.e. 2011, the project was named as ‘Development of School Infrastructure as Learning Resources’ – a voluntary project for making school print-rich. During the training of School Management Committees organized in all the Block Administrative Centres across years 2012 to 2016, he never forgot to talk about the project and encourage the SMC members, local authority and school heads to initiate it in their schools.

As a mark of accomplishment, almost all the government schools of the State of Sikkim are now like reputed private schools – well decorated, print-rich and pedagogically supportive.

The project in later years was recognized by some of the far-sighted officers of the department. They congratulated him for its success. Some of his senior officers have tried to appraise it in higher forum also while speaking on State achievements but after seeing the ‘school walls with content related paintings’ got very reluctant remarks ‘Ahh… BaLA’. Shri D. K. Pradhan (Respected Special Secretary) when he was State Project Director of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Sikkim), tried to showcase it in the National forum also but the same reluctant remarks ‘Ahh… BaLA’ echoed the meeting hall.

Frankly speaking as an initiator of the project, I take it as the most ever successful project accomplished through people’s participation. I would like to thank all the good people and my senior officers who appreciated our joint efforts.

*******
(Published in Sikkim Express on 29.08.2017)

LEARNING REMEDIATION: A BURNING TOPIC

I attended an eye opening orientation session by outsourced expert on remedial teaching at HRDD conference hall yesterday. It was targeted for present Class IX students. I am really grateful to our respected SPD (RMSA) sir and SPD (SSA) sir for giving me this opportunity. 🙏🙏🙏

The strategies suggested in the orientation session are different than what I have been suggesting to schools for conducting remedial teaching.

Some major differences are:
a) we suggest subject teachers to map/locate learning competency and difficulty areas of individual student before starting remediation but the session suggested to refer scores of students of diagnostic test before starting remediation.
👉 Our strategy to identify competency deficiency (deficiency of individual student) is through feedback "formative assessment in true sense") not through centralized diagnostic test.
👉 Our logic is that a teacher should need to know the actual areas where an individual child need remediation or it will be just re-teaching only, not remedial teaching

b) we suggest whole class approach without revealing the students about their competency inadequacies but the session suggested tiered approach (seggregate and teach the students without requisite learning level in separate classroom).
👉 Our strategies for remediation are peer teaching,  group activities, blackboard works, class quiz, etc. We believe that thi is the suitable strategy to conduct learning remediation  accommodating all children (Teaching in  separate classroom means requirement of extra sets of furniture, one extra classroom and one extra teacher which is hardly practical)
👉 Our logic is that segregation of students on their learning competencies will lead to further demotivation, problems or dropping out. On the other hand, this strategies will help students having learning difficulties can get more learning scopes when they were involved in the activities with their peers who have already achieved the requisite learning competencies and provide revision scope for later group

c) we suggest series of unit testing (paper-pencil tests) to track children's learning progress but the session suggested to 'make children work on worksheet provided' to track their progress (no test for students).

👉 Our strategy is to conduct test with standardized tools (following general testing pattern) after completing each unit and make an inventory of score records for tracking students' learning progress.
👉 Our logic is "testing is confirming". We believe that a standardized paper-pencil test helps subject teachers to know about their instructional gaps in particular unit and helps children to know the general testing patterns. In addition to this, we also believe that the paper-pencil tests will help the children to understand how to respond appropriately to given questions in written form (after all we are preparing children for written examination).

I know that I have very little knowledge and I also know that "little knowledge is dangerous" 😁😁

A POSITIVE INDICATION

👣
👣
👣

I feel so happy that the schools have now started conducting learning activities for their children besides the activities prescribed for Formative Assessment. This is indeed a positive feedback of series of in-service teacher trainings on "Teaching through activities" conducted under SSA during 2014, 2015 & 2016 academic years.

Here I want to say that the learning activities which we conduct inside/outside classroom require utmost attention. It should be meticulously structured in such a way that do not allow children to go astray and make learning objectives set for the activity get defused. It is not like, just thought of taking children to park, market place,  neighbouring schools or grouping children and making them work.

In fact, I want the teacher should keep in mind the grade specific learning outcomes while designing such learning activities. The activity should be designed in such way that can replace the classroom teaching and implicate more learning experiences among children than other instructional approaches. I mean the teachers should have clarity (curricular and co-curricular) of what competencies/skills that she/he intends to develop by the activity being designed.

I also wish that the teachers have Teaching Schedule with them for each activity with sequence - how activity starts, moves and concludes within the timeline decided while designing it.

Kindly use Learning Indicators prepared by SCERT & DIET (East) and Learning Indicators and Learning Outcomes prepared by NCERT while you design learning activities.

Thank you all the resource persons, school heads, DIETs and SCERT for making the dream a reality.
❤❤❤