[Reader-list] Statement of Parents and Teachers on the National Curriculum Framework for School Education

[broadcaster at syhlleti.org]

Statement of Parents and Teachers on the National Curriculum Framework for
School Education

As parents and teachers of schoolchildren, we are deeply concerned over the
National Curriculum Framework (NCF) for School Education prepared by the
National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT). The NCERT
was set up by the Government of India in 1961 to advise and assist the
Ministry of Education in the formulation and implementation of policies in
school education. The NCERT has prepared similar Curriculum Frameworks in
1975 and 1988. These Curriculum Frameworks have, in the past, influenced
the school syllabi of almost every State in the country. The influential
role of the NCERT requires us to closely examine the present National
Curriculum Framework.

School education should inculcate a quest for truth, a logical bent of mind
and the faculty of scientific reasoning. It must foster a secular and
democratic approach to life and to society, enabling the student to rise
above casteist, communal, linguistic and other parochial prejudices. It
must develop social awareness, a sense of obligation to society, a sense of
dignity of labour, and strength of character to fight against exploitation
and injustice. We are aware that school curricula and syllabi do not
adequately address these objectives, and we support genuine efforts at
reform. But we are deeply disturbed to note that the NCF, while paying lip
service to many of these objectives, arrives at contrary results through
its recommendations.

In particular, (i) we are completely opposed to the NCF’s recommendation of
introduction of religious ideas and teachings into the curriculum and co-
curricular activities. In a multi-religious nation like ours, peaceful
coexistence of all is possible only if religion is treated as a private
matter of its citizens, and religious concepts should not be introduced
into school subjects. The values that we have enumerated above   should be
promoted in schools through development of scientific temper and its
application to tackle problems in society. (ii) while we value the learning
of vocational skills as a part of education, we are opposed to the
vocationalisation of education that is the underlying philosophy of the
entire NCF. The purpose of education, as we have stated above, is to build
the citizens of tomorrow, with all-round human abilities, not just
vocational skills for the market.

The concept of the Indian nation inherent in the NCF, as an ancient and
changeless entity free of social contradictions, is ahistorical and
erroneous. The attempt to inculcate national pride through the application
of this erroneous concept in all subjects will damage both national pride
and a correct sense of our history. The NCF falsely glorifies the system of
education that prevailed in pre-colonial times and seeks to revive aspects
of it. In reality, that system of education was, understandably, neither
national nor modern. It was rooted in the caste system, and was appropriate
for local agricultural production, trade and administration. The NCF
completely ignores the efforts of our 19th century social reformers, who
forced changes in the colonial educational system to include the best of
Western thought in order to create a new Indian character.

The NCF invokes `globalisation’ to advocate a number of sweeping changes in
pedagogy and curriculum. It creates a false impression that current methods
of teaching and learning are completely useless and need to be swept away.
In particular, it attacks and devalues the standing and role of the teacher
in the education process. Simultaneously, it valorises `learning how to
learn’ by students at the cost of much of the existing curriculum on
subjects like history. In our opinion, a student who passes out of school
should be grounded in basic concepts of the natural and social sciences, as
well as in art and literature. The sacrifice of content at this early stage
would be an opportunity lost for building character and outlook that would
be a lifelong asset for both the individual and society. The role of the
teacher in this process is crucial.

Globalisation is a contentious topic on even the definition of which, there
is little consensus. Based on one’s location in society, and based on
perceptions of future gains and losses, the undefined phenomenon is both
hailed and condemned. Its complexities can be understood only with a sound
grasp of history and economics, and is usually a research area in higher
education. The NCF’s own references to globalisation suggest that
oversimplified and one-sided versions are to be taught at school level. We
strongly oppose this.

In its pronouncements on language teaching, the NCF creates highly
avoidable confusion.  An assertion that Hindi is fast becoming the lingua
franca of the country is injudicious and not backed by evidence. While
Sanskrit is a rich language and a worthy optional subject of study, the NCF
seems to suggest that it will become a compulsory subject at the primary or
upper primary stage. Language teaching is compartmentalised into `pure’ and
`applied’ forms, and `functional’ courses are advocated, which would only
hamper linguistic development.

We also object to the substitution of the learning of science by `science
and technology’. Science provides the fundamentals while technology is an
evolving process building on basic science. The merit of the Indian
education system has been in building sound fundamentals which has enabled
Indians to perform well anywhere in the world. Compromising that element of
the education system would be a retrograde step from all perspectives. At
school-level, it is far more important to gain a firm foundation in the
concepts of science. Similarly, the NCF’s ideas for mathematics suggest
that the curriculum will be diluted by orienting it towards mundane
applications alone. These changes will seriously hamper the development of
scientific reasoning and outlook among school students.

We are completely opposed to the proposed distortion of the teaching of
history by the NCF. The proposal to reduce the quantum of history in the
social science syllabus is fraught with grave dangers. The present would be
a meaningless jumble of events unless it is informed by a sense of history.
The NCF’s proposals imply that that there will be no teaching of historical
developments in chronological order, or of methods of historical analysis.
Over-emphasis on the cultural heritage of India, lack of emphasis on
economic and political history, and the proposal to change the “Europe-
centred view of the world”, would result in unacceptable distortions. The
assimilation of European scientific, economic and political thought,
contributing to the creation of a national freedom movement, is one of the
important elements of Indian national consciousness. The NCF’s proposals
negate this historical truth.

The most pernicious proposals in the NCF are those that will lead to the
further deepening and legitimisation of class divisions in education. The
rationalisation that most students will drop out of education after the
higher secondary stage has no place in an education policy document. We
also reject the NCF’s plan to create vocational and academic streams after
the secondary stage. A close reading of the NCF document clearly indicates
that it is a blueprint to push the poor and the socially disadvantaged
sections of our society to the vocational stream using a distorted
interpretation of “equality of opportunity” and “dignity of labour”.

The NCF is already mired in controversy, it has been challenged by a Public
Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court on grounds of its content, as well
as the procedure by which it has been finalised. The NCF was finalised
without referring it to the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE),
which has eminent educationists and State Education Ministers as its
members. The Supreme Court stayed implementation of the language and social
science curricula until disposal of the case. A number of educationists,
teachers and Principals of public schools in Delhi have issued a statement
demanding withdrawal and re-examination of the NCF.

Our study of the NCF makes it clear to us that its premises and contents
are fundamentally inimical to scientific, secular and democratic education,
and its accessibility to all, the concepts of which are a legacy of our
freedom movement. We therefore find no scope to improve the NCF and reject
it completely. In doing so, we also question previous policy
recommendations and decisions on the basis of which much of the current NCF
is framed. While we support the petitioners’ challenge of the NCF in the
Supreme Court, we recognise the need for parents and teachers to be much
more organised and aware of syllabus and curriculum design processes.
Regardless of the Court’s verdict, we are of the firm opinion that the
NCERT should start the NCF preparation exercise afresh, involving CABE and
inviting wide participation from parents, teachers and educationists in the
true sense.


 1. Poonam Batra
2. Mukul Priyadarshini
3. Rajesh R.
4. Smita Gupta
5. Gayatri Ratnam
6. Jayati Ghosh
7. Abhijit Sen
8. S.N. Shabbeer
9. M. Ragiba
10. Rukmini Datta
11. S. Nandakumar
12. Shiney Varghese
13. Madhu Sarin
14. Apoorvanand
15. Aromar Revi
16. Prakash Kashwan
17. Sheema Mookherjee
18. Mohammed Imran
19. Francis Lobo
20. Rupa Mukerji
21. Geeta Nambisan
22. Govind Shahani
23. Bharati Jagannathan
24. Viren Lobo
25. Depinder Singh
26. Ajinder Kaur
27. Kavitha Anand
28. Abdul Mabood
29. Manvinder Singh
30. Suminder Kaur
31. D.N. Kalia
32. Rajive Tiwari
33. Preeti Vajpeyi
34. Kabir Vajpeyi
35. Suvasini Iyer
36. Sonia Shamihoke
37. Gita Dewan Verma
38. Daman Singh
39. Ragini Bajaj
40. Tarun Debnath
41. Rajneesh Rastogi