Competency Based Education in Indian SCH

Competency-based Education in Indian
Schools: Realities and Vision for the

Future
Dr. Mrittunjoy Guha Majumdar,

University of Cambridge
under the aegis of
Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Government of India
September 2019
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Guha-Majumdar Report | 2
Introduction
Investing in Conceptual Learning and Competencies
Knowledge is power and education is the foundation of sustainable progress. As
Benjamin Franklin once said, “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest”.
India has reached a unique point in history where its social and economic progress
needs to be sustained and sustainable with a proportionate progress of human
resource parameters of its populace. Most importantly, education is the one element
of human progress and evolution that needs to be looked at more closely. India’s has
been a story of mixed success on the educational front: although the country is home
to 22% of the world’s population, it is home to 46% of the world’s illiterate
population [1]. India is also home to a large number of the world’s out-of-school
children, though there have been encouraging signs on the schooling participation
front lately. Among the children in schools in India, the critical question has been of
quality of education. Has the capacity building exercise of India’s education sector
been adequately followed up by the setting of high standards of education? In a
country like India, with its massive population, policy-makers can often be obsessed
with the quantity and scale of resolution of the issue of literacy [2, 3]. The
unfortunate casualty in the process often is the nature and kind of education that
could lead to independent thinking, critical reasoning and creativity, besides tools to
equip the student to tackle the challenges of life. Standardization of curriculum has
led to lesser engagement with subjective experiences and a certain fragmentation of
the lives of students [4]. The culture of rote learning and an examination-oriented
attitude to resources and concepts has led to a parochial and skewed understanding of
subjects and their applications.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 is to ensure inclusive and
equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all [5]. In
India, after Independence, the subject of education of citizens was deliberated on by
two National Commissions — the Secondary Education Commission (1952 - 1953)
and the Education Commission (1964 – 1966). The Indian Constitution was amended
in 1976 to include the topic of education in the Concurrent List, and for the first time
India as a nation had a uniform National Policy on Education in 1986. But it wasn’t
until the turn of the millennium that a major shift in the way we looked at education
in India, happened. Education went from being a Directive Principle of State Policy
to becoming a fundamental right. Today, free and compulsory education is provided
by the Indian constitution to children between the age of 6 to 14, as per Article 21-A
of the constitution, which was inserted by the The Constitution (Eighty-sixth

Amendment) Act, 2002 [6]. The act was criticized for a number of reasons, ranging
from non-inclusion of below-six kids to the imposition of restrictions on religious
minority schools, but the big elephant in the room was: what about the quality of
education provided? While government schools remain the largest provider of
elementary education in the country, with 1209 Kendriya Vidyalaya across the
country (and three abroad) as of July 2019 and a number of Sarvodaya Vidyalayas
nationwide, thereby forming around 80% of all recognized schools, they suffer from
issues ranging from a shortage of teachers, absenteeism, mismanagement to gaps in
infrastructure [7, 8]. However, since the salaries of government school teachers are
often more than those of private school teachers, one is led to ask: what are we
missing? What is keeping us from availing value for money and investment? The
solution probably is in the manner of information dissemination and the art of
pedagogy, besides the glaring systemic problems. In the Right to Education Act [9],
Point 29 (2), it says
29 (2) The academic authority, while laying down the curriculum and
evaluation procedure under sub-section (1) [which specifies about the
authorities to be appointed for curriculum establishment], shall take into
consideration the following, namely:-
(a) conformity with the values enshrined in the constitution;
(b) all round development of the child;
(c) building up child’s knowledge, potentiality and talent;
(d) development of physical and mental facilities to the fullest extent;
(e) learning through activities, discovery and exploration in a child friendly
and child-centered manner;
(f) medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in child’s mother
tongue;
(g) making the child free of fear, trauma and anxiety and helping the child
to express views freely;
(h) comprehensive and continuous evaluation of child’s understanding of
knowledge and his or her ability to apply the same.
Clauses (b), (c) and (e) point towards a learning that shall develop a child’s potential
with an all-round development and learning through ‘activities, discovery and
exploration’. As I shall later discuss in this report, this is exactly the basis and
premise of competency-based learning.
2.1. National Curriculum Framework: Rethinking School Education in India
The National Curriculum Framework (2005) presents a comprehensive outlook by
looking at nuances of education in the country along with recommending changes
and reforms in specific areas [10]. The Framework came as a result of a process of
social deliberation that was initiated by National Council of Educational Research

and Training (NCERT) to focus public attention on what should be taught to children
in the country and how it should be taught. The foreword to the Framework
document by Prof. Yash Pal contains the memorable words
There is much analysis and a lot of advice. All this is accompanied by
frequent reminders that specificities matter, that the mother tongue is a
critical conduit, that social, economic and ethnic backgrounds are
important for enabling children to construct their own knowledge.
Media and educational technologies are recognized as significant, but
the teacher remains central. Diversities are emphasized but never
viewed as problems. There is a continuing recognition that societal
learning is an asset and that the formal curriculum will be greatly
enriched by integrating with that. There is a celebration of plurality and
an understanding that within a broad framework plural approaches
would lead to enhanced creativity.
The Framework recognized the purpose of education in enabling a student to define
and pursue a purpose in life and achieving one’s potential, along with acknowledging
the others’ right to as well. It acknowledged the equality of all students while
respecting the socio-economic diversity and backgrounds that the students came
from. One of the most insightful statements of the Framework was: `Individual
aspirations in a competitive economy tend to reduce education to being an
instrument of material success’. In this light, it becomes stressful for students to learn
and reduces inter-personal interactions and peer-to-peer learning that the Framework
highlights as highly important. It goes on to say that education must be able to
promote values that `foster peace, humaneness and tolerance in a multicultural
society’. But according to me there are two key questions that the Framework raises
that are significant:
1. What educational purposes should schools seek to achieve?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to achieve
these purposes?
The report Learning Without Burden by a committee appointed by the Ministry of
Human Resource Development had analyzed the problem of curriculum load in 1992,
and argued that the issue arose out of the system’s tendency to treat information as
knowledge [11]. According to them, children had to be regarded as more than just
passive receivers of knowledge and one had to move away from using textbooks as
the basis for examinations. One had to repose faith in the child’s own creative
instincts and not necessarily spoon-feed facts and concepts but rather leave space for
independent thinking and critical reasoning. They should be allowed to create
knowledge out of experience, and education should be inherently experiential and not
just based on rote-learning.

2.2. Ensuring Quality in School-based Education

When it comes to India, as our education system attempts to reach out to children
across the nation, the issue of quality presents new challenges as well as
opportunities. This is part of the larger discussion on pedagogy, teaching and learning
in the international context [1-26]. We cannot realize our vision of a participatory
democracy in India without getting rid of the notion and belief that quality goes with
privilege, especially when it comes to education. Quality is often assessed based on
examinations, and private schools are seen to do better in the country. However,
aspects such as the lack of learning in one’s mother tongue or the low diversity when
it comes to socio-economic backgrounds within a cohort due to non-inclusion of
students from economically disadvantaged families, for instance, can be detrimental
to the aims and goals of education. What is quality for one due to prioritization of
certain aspects of education over others may not be quality for others or in general.
This brings to the fore the metaphorical triangle of equality, quantity and quality,
called the ‘elusive triangle’ by J. P. Naik. In the past, UNESCO has discussed
systemic standards as the appropriate context of the debate on quality. One key
aspect in this regard is the recruitment, training and evaluation of teachers and their
quality. No system of education can grow without good quality teachers, and this
systemic standard is often what is crucial for determining the overall quality of the
system, besides other recent elements such as effective use of technology in learning.
Teachers remain the backbone of the teaching and learning experience. The other
aspect where quality must be ensured is the appropriate contextualization and
selection of knowledge for inclusion in the curriculum. Knowledge that is proposed
to be included in each subject area must undergo careful examination in terms of
socio-economic and cultural conditions and goals that it seeks to respect and achieve
respectively.
In India, around 17% of the country, geographically, still does not have the facilities
of primary schooling , and even though there has been a general increase in the
number of primary school teachers from 5,38,000 in 1950–1951 to 18,09,661 in
2002, the national average for the number of qualified teachers in primary public
schools has only been 2.47 [32]. A way to ensure quality in a country across a
country as big as India is the use of auxiliary teachers and para-educators from the
community in a locale where students are targeted for improved education. This was
a key suggestion by International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century (1996). This however has to be supplemented by quality assurance by
training of such para-educators as well as teachers, in general. The Indian
government has been working on this front: there are 1,04,894 para-teachers at the
upper primary level, 37,950 para-teachers at the secondary level, and 33,911 para-
teachers at the higher secondary level, according to the Seventh All India Survey –
2005 [32].

Thinking beyond the Box

Competency-based Learning
The kind of learning where every individual skill or learning outcome is the
fundamental unit of the learning experience is known as competency-based learning.
This kind of learning is learner focused. It works naturally with independent study
and reasoning. In this, the instructor is more of a facilitator than an instructor, and
this method of learning allows a student to learn individual skills that they find
challenging at their own pace. In summative examination and testing, while the
competence in majority of things tested on is enough, in competency-based learning
and evaluation, mastery of each competency is required.
William G. Spady defines Competency-Based Learning as [27],
Data-based, adaptive, performanceoriented set of integrated processes that
facilitate, measure, record and certify within the context of flexible time
parameters the demonstration of known, explicity stated, and agreed upon
learning outcomes that reflect successful functioning in life roles
There are certain essential, desirable, and related elements that distinguish
'traditional' programs from competency-based programs:
What do students learn?
Competency-based courses based solely on particular learning outcomes that
are called competencies (usually called competencies or tasks) that have been
verified as being essential for developing critical thinking and reasoning and/or
successful employment in the occupation for which the student is being trained
(in case of pre-employment training courses).
On the other hand, traditional programmes are based on educational material
and resources, with there being not much clarity on the exact competencies
acquired after each section or module of the programme. The focus here is on
covering the curriculum and not building capacities or obtaining competencies.
How do students learn?
In competency-based learning courses, student-centered learning resources are
designed to help them master each competency. There are two important
elements associated with this: firstly, resources are designed such that the
student can acquire competencies and knowledge at their own pace, and
secondly, there is a system of periodic feedback throughout the learning
process, with there being opportunities for students to correct their
performance, if need be.

In traditional programmes, teachers are mainly and primarily relied upon to

deliver most of the teaching, training and instruction, through methods such as
demonstrations, lectures and discussions. The process is fairly instructor-
centered and students have little control over the pace of instruction. Also,
feedback on progress is usually not periodic in such programmes.
When do students proceed from task to task?
In competency-based learning, students are given enough time, albeit within
reasonable bounds, to master one competency or learning outcome before
moving on to the next. On the other hand, in traditional programmes, a group
of students spend the same amount of time on a course element or resource.
The group, as a whole, then moves on to the next element or resource after a
fixed amount of time. This may be too soon or not soon enough for individual
students.
What happens if students have learned each task?
In a competency-based learning model, each student is required to perform
each competency or task to a certain preset, fixed standard and to a high level
of proficiency to receive credit for the same.
On the other hand, in traditional programmes, the performance of a student is
compared to a group norm and students are allowed to move on to the next unit
even if they may marginally master the current unit. In such programmes, a
student can pass without having proficiency or mastery over each competency
or task within a subject-matter.
3.1. The Principles of Competency-Based Education
There are certain key principles behind competency-based education [28-31] that I
would like to focus on, in this section. These include the responsibilities of
stakeholders in the education process, nature and kind of instruction and ways to
facilitate learning among all students.
Principle 1: Importance of Instruction and Time
Any student can master most any competency at a high level of mastery if
provided with high-quality instruction and sufficient time.
Principle 2: Reflection of Ability in Performance
A student's ability for learning a task need not predict how well the student
learns the task.

These two principles highlight that by giving students the right kind of
instruction and sufficient time, most students can be made to reach proficiency
and mastery of tasks and competencies. The ability of each student need not be
reflected in the student’s performance. Lower-ability students may be able to
learn as much as high-ability students and even retain it, with some additional
time and help to learn. The cornerstone of the competency-based learning
model is that the ability of the students should only predict how long it takes to
attain proficiency and master, not how much is earned.
Principle 3: Errors in Educational Environment
Individual student differences in levels of proficiency and mastery of a
competency or task are not caused as much by characteristics of the student as
much as by errors in the training environment.
Studies by Bloom and others [28-30] have illustrated that many of the
individual differences in how much students learn are caused by ‘errors’ in the
education system, not by an intrinsic quality possessed by the student. Certain
factors that have been shown to influence how much students learn
1. How many of the necessary learning fundamentals and prerequisites a
student already has that shall help acquire a competency
2. What kinds of attitude the student has about the learning experience
3. The length and quality of instruction
The competency-based education model addresses all these elements in a
positive way. By successfully gaining proficiency in early, basic tasks at a high
level of mastery, students can tackle more complex tasks later with the
necessary fundamental and prerequisite learning in hand. This also helps create
a positive attitude and a sense of security about the learning experience.
Principle 4: Homogenization of Capabilities
Rather than being good or bad, slow or fast learners, most students can
become very similar to one another in ability and rate of learning, besides
motivation for further learning, when provided with favorable learning
conditions.
In the competency-based education model, we assume and expect that each
and every student succeed and do well, and we focus efforts on systematically
developing the education program to realize this goal.
Principle 5: Difference in learning not learners

We should focus more on differences in learning and less on differences in

learners.
We tend to often judge, categorize and group students based on examination-
based performances and outward characteristics that often have little to do with
how well they can learn. What we need to do is to critically examine how the
instructional system itself is the source of differences in learning outcomes,
and possibly to address these issues, as in the competency-based model.
Principle 6: Teaching and learning
That which is worth teaching is worth learning.
Teachers have to move away from the selfish attitude of judging students and
believing it is the student’s prerogative to do well in what they teach. Many
teachers believe that what is worth teaching may be too tough and convoluted
for some, and therefore beyond their capabilities to learn. The competency-
based model says that when a student is unable to attain proficiency or mastery
of a learning outcome, it is our collective problem, and it is the responsibility
of the teachers too to address this.
Principle 7: Kind and quality of Instruction
The most important element in the teaching and learning process is the kind
and quality of instruction delivered to students.
In traditional models, instruction is considered to be one of many elements of
teaching and learning, besides resources, facilities and tools, while in the
competency-based model, instruction is crucial and primary in the learning
process. Therefore, the actual delivery of instruction is carefully planned and
developed, tested and revised based on evaluation-results.
Given this importance of instruction in the competency-based learning model,
instruction is designed around certain essential elements in such models:
1. The student is presented with some sort of cue. This could be audio-visual or
in some other form.
2. Then the student participates by actually responding, applying or doing
something in some other ways with the cues presented.
3. As the learner participates, he/she is periodically reinforced to ensure that
correct performance continues and incorrect performance does not.
4. Feedback and corrective measures help students find out how well they are
doing and what they need to improve to attain proficiency and mastery of
competencies and learning outcomes.

Figure 1 Tasks to be accomplished to develop a competency-based education program [31]
Given above is a succinct and summary description of the way to design a

competency-based education and training programme. One must note that we have to
be aware of parameters related to the student-group, such as numbers and learning
capabilities, in each step to effectively move forward in a timed manner, in designing
a programme that facilitates effective learning for most students. We will now look at
an international assessment that assesses education policies and frameworks to
determine whether competency-based learning, independent thinking and critical
reasoning are encouraged and facilitated therein: the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA).
3.2. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

First performed in 2000, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
is an international study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) in member and non-member countries, which seeks to

evaluate educational systems by measuring the scholastic performance of 15-year-old

school pupils in the areas of mathematics, science, and reading. The focus is mainly
on competency-based learning in these areas. One may ask: why 15-year old
students? OECD says this is because in most countries, at the age of 15, students
decide whether or not they want to continue their education, and therefore need to be
equipped for adult life at that state.
The aim of the study is to provide comparable data with a view to enabling countries
to improve their education policies, targets and outcomes. It specifically measures
problem solving skills of students and their cognitive abilities. As per PISA,
PISA draws on content that can be found in curricula across the world
and looks at students’ ability to apply knowledge and skills and to
analyse, reason and communicate effectively as they examine, interpret
and solve problems. PISA does not prescribe or promote any one
curriculum nor is it constrained by the need to find common
denominators.
79 countries participated in the study in 2018. India had participated in PISA 2009,
albeit through schools in only two states—Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh. The
results of the study had indicated that the standard of education was found to be well
below the global standards. Tamil Nadu was judged 72nd and Himachal Pradesh
73rd among 74 participants. After a break of 12 years, India will again be
participation in PISA in 2021.
Usually OECD’s contractors and experts, along with inputs from participating
countries, create the question-bank for PISA, which it describes as follows, when it
comes to the nature of questions
PISA uses multiple-choice testing as the primary feature of its
assessments because it is reliable, efficient, and supports robust and
scientific analyses. It is also important to note that multiple-choice
questions in PISA have a variety of formats, including highlighting of a
word within a text, connecting pieces of information and making
multiple selections from drop-down menus. In addition, typically up to
one-third of questions in a PISA assessment are open-ended.
Students also answer a background questionnaire, providing
information about themselves, their attitudes to learning and their
homes. In addition, school principals are given a 20-minute
questionnaire about their schools. Countries and economies can also
choose to administer several optional PISA questionnaires: the
computer familiarity questionnaire, the educational career
questionnaire and the parent background questionnaire. In addition,

many countries and economies choose to gather further information

through national questionnaires. The information collected helps
countries and economies to explore connections between how students
perform in PISA and factors such as migration, gender and students’
socio-economic background, as well as students’ attitudes about school
and their approaches to learning.
The study uses an efficient design in which the full set of test material is distributed
among 13 different test booklets, at the national level. These booklets are randomly
assigned to the randomly sampled students who participate in the test. PISA applies
strict technical standards for the sampling of schools and students within each school
too. The sampling procedures are quality assured. Moreover, the achieved samples
and corresponding response rates are passed through an adjudication process to
verify that they have complied with the standards set. If any country's response rate
falls below the specified threshold, this is reported.
PISA focuses on competency-based learning. PISA scores can be located along
specific scales developed for each subject area. These scales are divided into levels
that represent groups of test questions, beginning at Level 1 with questions that
require only the most basic skills to complete. There is increasing difficulty with each
level. Once a student’s test has been corrected, his or her score in reading, science
and mathematics (along with collaborative problem solving in PISA 2015) can be
located on the appropriate scale. In each test subject, there is theoretically no
minimum or maximum score in PISA but are rather scaled to fit approximately
normal distributions, with means for OECD countries around 500 score points and
standard deviations around 100 score points.
International datasets and studies in the education sector, such as PISA, can help with
assessing causal factors and issues within a country and beyond, when it comes to
education policy. Such studies allow classifications to be developed, which can be
used for comparative statistical analyses of education performance indicators. This,
in turn, helps to identify the consequences of varied policy choices. What makes
PISA unique is the way it looks at things such as ‘literacy’. Instead of examining
mastery over specific school curricular, PISA assesses students’ ability to apply
knowledge and skills and to analyse, reason and communicate effectively, as they
examine, interpret and solve problems.
Thus, PISA 2021 is a major opportunity for India not only to do well in the survey
but also in long-term policy measures on education and learning outcomes.
3.3. OECD Assessment on India’s Education Profile
India’s education profile has been analyzed and presented by OECD after recent
studies and initiatives for studying the various nuances of the country’s policy

framework and realities when it comes to education [13,14]. As per the Education at
a Glance (EAG) 2018 initiative, India is the country with the largest share of adults
(46%) who are aged 25-64 who have not attained primary education among all G20
and OECD member states. Less than 33% of the adult population had attained at least
upper secondary education, while education attainment is improving among the
younger generations. However, a lot still needs to be done on this front, even as just
14% of young adults in India have attained tertiary education. This is the second
lowest share after South Africa (at 6%) and just below Indonesia (at 16%), Brazil (at
17%) and Argentina (at 18%). Talking of attainment, the gender gap remains high in
India, when it comes to formal education in the country. There are about 70% young
women who have not attained upper secondary school as compared to 58% of young
men.
In India, general programmes are found to be much more attractive to young people
than vocational ones, with only 3% of students in upper secondary education
attending vocational programmes. Among students in general education courses, the
number of repeaters is low (with Only 0.4% of students in lower secondary and 2%
in upper secondary education are repeaters), which along with low graduation and
attainment rates, points to the lack of access to secondary education to a major cross-
section of the population, along with high drop-out rates. The share of students in
India receiving vocational training was the lowest among OECD and partner
countries in 2016. The number of upper secondary students attending vocational
programmes is 32% on average across G20 countries and 44% across OECD
countries. In India, only 1% of students enrolled in vocational programmes are
female, while it is over 33% in 26 OECD and partner countries.
Besides the nature of the courses, be it general or vocational education, the
institutions providing them in India belong to a skewed distribution as well: a
majority of students attend private institutions at all educational levels. About 33% of
children in pre-primary education, 42% in lower secondary education and 59%
students in upper secondary education attend private schooling in India. However,
this pre-eminence of private schooling has not helped with student-teacher ratios:
Both lower secondary schools, in the public and private sectors, have a student-
teacher ratio of 27:1, which is well over the G20 averages of 17:1 in public
institutions and 14:1 in private institutions. When it comes to upper secondary
schooling, the student-teacher ratio is 32:1 in private institutions and 28:1 in public
institutions, as compared to G20 averages of 14:1 and 15:1. In public tertiary
education sector, the student-teacher ratio is 41:1, which is the highest across all
OECD and partner countries. The situation is better in private tertiary institutions,
where the ratio is 18:1, which is quite similar to the OECD average student-teacher
ratio of 16:1.

Figure 2 Percentage of 25-34 year-olds without upper secondary education, by gender (2017)
Figure 3 Ratio of students to teaching staff in tertiary education, by type of institution (2016)

A Dialogue of Policy and Practice

International Best Practices in Education
PISA has spurred and birthed a number of best practices and policy changes over the
years. Let us look at some of them.
4.1. Education Policy and Practices in Belgium
The trilingual federal government of Belgium with its Flanders, the Dutch-, or
Flemish-speaking area combines both regional and community resources and power
to create a education system that is among the world's best. It is interesting to note
that each region of Belgium has distinct languages in which learning is carried out.
The language of education is French in the French region, Dutch in the Dutch region
and German in the German region. In Brussels (Capital Region), the languages of
education are French or Dutch, depending on what the parents choose. In the
municipalities around Brussels, known as the “communes à facilités’” such as
Wezembeek-Oppem, Linkebeek, Wemmel, Rhode Saint-Genèse and Kraainem, the
language of education is Dutch. However, if the mother tongue of a child, whose
head of the family resides in one of these municipalities, is French, the child may
attend a French-language school.
The Belgian education system has the nursery school level, primary school level and
secondary school level. The nursery school is for children from the age of 2.5 years.
While it is not compulsory, it is recommended by education experts. Unlike in others
countries, where this is largely a kindergarten level, Belgian nursery schools actively
prepare the children for primary school. Primary school is for students between the
age of 6 to 12 years. There is a common test at the end of this cycle known as
certificat d'études de base (CEB). The test is on Mathematics, French and what is
known as `Awakening’ (with the subjects of history, science and geography primarily
covered).
Students can thereafter enroll in secondary schools, after successful completion of the
CEB. There are four kinds of secondary schools: general, technical, artistic and
professional. General secondary schools in Belgium cover a broad and general
education, thereby preparing the students for higher education, with possible
directions including (combinations of) ancient Greek and Latin, Modern Languages,
Economics, Sciences, Mathematics and Human Sciences. The technical secondary
schools are of two types: the ones who focus more on technical aspects (with the
TTK courses) and the ones who focus more on practical matters (with the STK
courses). In technical secondary school, students also have a general education in
history, mathematics, science, languages and geography, but mostly not on the same
level as general secondary school courses. Lessons in technical secondary schools

have a more practical and technical rather than a theoretical approach. Students in
STK courses are usually equipped for the job market while those in TTK courses
continue for a higher degree or course such as a bachelor’s or master’s degree.
Possible options career-wise upon graduating from a technical secondary school
include practical information and communication technology, teaching, trade,
practical engineering and office management.
Vocational secondary schools cover highly practical, job-specific education.
Afterwards, several directions offer seventh, sometimes even an eighth,
specialization years. Career options thereafter include masonry, car mechanics and
carpentry, among many others. This kind of education unfortunately does not qualify
students to pursue higher education. If a student opts for the additional years of
training and specialization, they can receive a diploma, which is on par with that
received after the completion of the degree from a technical secondary school. This
does allow them to pursue higher education. Last but not the least, art secondary
schools bring in the artistic element. They link general secondary education
development with art practices such as visual arts and performance arts. Possible
career options include musical arts, dancing, acting and graphical art.
The OECD recently described the Belgian education model as such:
Belgium has some positive equity indicators, such as universal access to pre-
primary education and a longer duration of compulsory education; although
socio-economic background had an above-average impact on students’
performance in PISA 2015, and performance gaps between migrant and non-
migrant students remain high. While the population without an upper
secondary qualification has decreased and is now below the EU average,
disparities persist between the larger urban areas and the rest of the country.
The proportions of population that have attained at least upper secondary
education is close to the OECD average, and the proportion of students
enrolled in vocational education and training (VET) programmes is above the
OECD average, reflecting diverse offerings in VET.
Teacher training and development is given a key role in the Belgian education system
[12]. Teachers teaching from pre-primary to lower secondary class-cohorts follow
three years of teacher education at bachelor’s level on average, besides also having a
mandatory teaching practicum. For teaching in upper secondary class-cohorts, a
master’s degree is also needed. In primary and secondary education in Belgium, the
teacher-student ratio is found to be below the OECD average and the salaries of
teacher above the OECD average overall. However, there is a lack of experienced
staff and high staff turnover seen in some disadvantaged schools in Belgium.
Schools in Belgium have complete freedom to develop their own curricula and
assessments, including self-evaluations. Schools are classified into three different

management and funding categories: publicly funded schools that are managed by the
Community authorities, grant-aided schools managed by other levels of public
government, be it cities, municipalities and provinces, and grant-aided private
schools. In Belgium, the share of 25-34 year-olds with at least an upper secondary
education is 83% as of 2017 OECD data. Belgium achieved above-average scores in
science, mathematics and reading in PISA 2015.
The country has not been reluctant to present revolutionary ideas, such as when in the
Flemish Community in 2014, a parliamentary act aimed `to strengthen stakeholder
participation in school governance by improving communication and information
provision from schools, and to specifically encourage the participation of socially
vulnerable groups in the development of school policy’. It is such policies that has
placed trust in schools and helped in promoting equity in a highly decentralized
education model.
4.2. Education Policy and Practices in Brazil
Brazil may be affected by poor teaching quality, infrastructure gaps and low student
commitment but it is using benchmarking to identify problems and drive reform,
besides looking at federal funding schemes like FUNDEF and FUNDEB. The
creation of the basic education equalization fund Fundo de Desenvolvimento do
Ensino Fundamental (FUNDEF) in 1996 helped in address disparities within the
education system of Brazil [15, 16]. The fund, firstly, guaranteed a national minimum
level of spending per student in primary education. This was set at R$ 315 in 1998.
This represented a significant increase in resources for primary students across the
country, be it in the north, center-west or northeast, particularly in municipal schools.
This spurred enrolments in schools. This was followed in 1998 by school bus systems
(instituted by municipalities), school feeding, enrollment campaigns, and other
inducements to get children into school. The second good thing about FUNDEF was
the federally mandated system of redistribution within states. Also mandated was a
federally managed top-up fund, supplemented with federal resources. This meant that
all municipal and state schools within a state in Brazil could achieve the mandated
per student spending threshold. The third major feature of FUNDEF was that it
mandated 60% of the total per student allocation to be spent on teacher salaries and
40% on operating costs. Municipalities and states could spend above the federally
established floor-value.

FUNDEF/FUNDEB Expenditure
(Source: National Treasury, 2010)
90 83.8
80 76.2
69.8
70
60 54.4
50 43.2
41
37.5 35.9 38.3
40 33.4 35.4
31.1
28.1
30
20
10
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Billions of Brazilian Real
There was a reauthorization and expansion of FUNDEF as Fundo de Manutenção e

Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica e de Valorização dos Profi ssionais da
Educação (FUNDEB) in 2007. FUNDEB extended the equalization scheme. It began
to cover pre-primary education and secondary education, besides explicitly
guaranteeing minimum levels of per capita funding for enrollment in education
programs for quilombo and indigenous communities, and youth and adult education.
The FUNDEF and FUNDEB reforms have transformed the education sector in Brazil
by stimulating an overall increase in basic education spending after 1998, besides
improving the equity of spending across jurisdictions and regions.
Besides this, there have been many innovations in the education policy of Brazil over
the past 15 years at the various levels of governance that have made it go from
having a dismal PISA ranking to being among the countries with a positive change in
this sector. The most important forces behind Brazil’s progress, besides education
finance equalization using schemes like FUNDEB and FUNDEF, have been in two
critical areas:
 Results measurement
 Conditional cash transfers to increase schooling attainment of students from
economically weaker sections of society
Besides funding and finances, one of the major policies by the Brazilian government
is that of results measurement. Over the years since 1994, the government has
systematically constructed one of the world’s best systems for measuring education
results. Some would say that the Índice de Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica

(IDEB) of education quality system and the Prova Brasil/Provinha Brasil student
assessments are comparable, if not better, than current structures and systems for the
same in most OECD countries in relevance, quantity and quality of information it
provides, with regards to student and school performances.
Besides being a highly visible source of public information on school and system
performance, these indicators are also seen as measurement anchors for new policies
aimed at incentivizing teachers and schools. Brazil also initiated a sample-based and
well-designed student assessment system known as Sistema Nacional de Avaliação
da Educação Básica (SAEB) in 1995. SAEB conducted biannual tests of Portugese
and Mathematics to a nationally representative sample of students. This system was
designed to provide representative results at the state, albeit not municipal, level and
thereby to allow and facilitate standardized tracking of learning progress over time.
In 2005, the Ministry of Education (Government of Brazil) expanded the SAEB to
cover all students in 4th and 8th grade in Portugese and Mathematics every two
years. The exam was renamed as the Prova Brazil, while SAEB remained as a
sample-based assessment for students of the 11th grade. This meant that for the first
time data on the average learning performance in each school administered by
Brazil’s 26 states and the federal district, besides the 5,564 municipalities, was
available. In 2007, the Ministry of Education (Government of Brazil) added a
voluntary test of 3rd grade Numeracy and Reading Literacy and numeracy, known as
the Provinha Brasil. The construction of the technical capacity and instruments for a
standardized and periodic measurement of learning outcomes of almost 40 million
students in 1,75,000 primary and secondary schools strengthened the education sector
and this benchmarking has become a hallmark of the Brazilian education system
[15].
Last but not the least is the work the government has been doing in reducing
schooling costs for children from economically backward families. It does this using
a program of cash support to low income families for protecting the educational
interests and schooling attainment of their children. The monthly cash-payment
known as Bolsa Escola helped tremendously, besides being bolstered by the
development of innovative distribution channels such as ATM cards for low-income
mothers, thereby not only helping in the administration of the program but also in
female empowerment.
In 2003, the Brazilian government scaled the program further by folding various
other cash and in-kind transfer programs into a unified targeting system and renamed
it as Bolsa Familia. The government also streamlined the associated administration.
By 2009, this scheme covered more than 97.3% of the target population. A number
of evaluations of the scheme have found evidence of positive impacts on a range of

education outcomes, including grade progression, retention rates, attendance,

enrollment, and study time of students from beneficiary families.
4.3. Education Policy and Practices in Finland
Finland has worked towards achieving excellence and equality in education based on
constructing a publically-funded comprehensive school system [17-20]. This system
does not select, track or streamline students during the common basic education that
they obtain. Finland's schools are well-integrated in communities residing in the
country. Part of the strategy of the state has been to spread the school network in a
manner such that pupils have a school near their residences wherever possible or
have free transportation to their nearest schools. Inclusive special education within
the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are other
aspects of the Finnish model. Teachers are highly committed and well trained, and
are one of the cornerstones of the success of the Finnish model. A master’s degree is
a pre-requisite for qualifying to teach at the primary and secondary levels. Entrance
into teaching positions in university programs is highly competitive, with only about
10% of applicants being successful to certain programs.
After nine-years of pursuing basic education in a comprehensive school, students
may choose to continue their secondary education in one of two options:
1. Lukio (an academic track)
2. Ammattikoulu (a vocational track)
at the age of 16, with both of these options being three years long and giving a
qualification to continue to tertiary education, which is divided into university and
polytechnic. Since the implementation of the Bologna process, all holders of a
bachelor's degree can qualify for further academic studies. Learning of foreign
languages is also actively encouraged in the Finnish education model.
From the 2016-2017 academic year, Finland began implementing educational reform
that mandated that phenomenon-based learning be introduced and taught alongside
the traditional subject-based curriculum. This has been incorporated as part of a
new National Curriculum Framework, as per which this framework and course-
structure has been applied to all basic schools for students aged 7–16 years old.
While schools in Finland have used such forms of instruction since the 1980s, it is
only now that it has been made mandatory.
4.4. Education Policy and Practices in Japan
Japan emphasizes a holistic and experiential education, besides nurturing and
advancing fundamental and applied disciplines. In schools in Japan, the students
usually don’t take any major exams until they reach the 4th grade. They take small
tests instead. It is believed that the goal for the first few years of school is not

to judge the child’s knowledge, but to build their character and establish good
manners. They are taught to be considerate to nature, gentle to animals and respect
other people. They also learn values and virtues such as compassion, generosity, self-
control, grit, justice and empathy. Dignity of labour is also taught in Japan. In
schools, students, in groups with a rota of duties, have to clean the classrooms, public
areas in the school and even toilets by themselves. This also helps them to work
in a team and help each other. To help students develop problem-solving skills and
critical thinking, Japan requires students to study topics from different viewpoints
and draw links between what they observe. This begins at a fairly early stage in a
child’s learning experience. For getting into a good junior high school, most students
in Japan attend private after-school workshops or enter a preparatory school.
Children also learn to respect their own culture and centuries-old traditions, such as
with Shodo (Japanese Calligraphy) and Haiku.
According to OECD, Japan ranks highly among its peers in providing its students,
irrespective of socio-economic background, with equal educational opportunities. As
per PISA 2015, in Japan only about 9% of the variation in student performance is
explained by their socioeconomic backgrounds [21]. Perhaps this is why fewer
students in Japan struggle and drop-out rates in school are low. Japan has a high
graduation rate of 96.7%, which is much higher than the OECD average! The federal
government takes responsibility in trying to prevent economic hardship from
affecting the quality of education for all students. In the past, it has given grants to
students in rural Japan for free lunch, uniform and stationery.
The manner of hiring teachers in Japan is interesting and even exemplary. Instead of
individual schools hiring teachers, prefectures in Japan hire teachers. The teachers are
then assigned to a school, and these school assignments change roughly every three
years in the beginning of the teacher’s career and then become less frequent later in
their careers. Thus the prefectures have autonomy as to which teachers to assign to
which school and cohort of students as per the need. Thus, the prefectures can make
sure that the strongest teachers are assigned to those who need them the most. This
also helps in the teachers learning from different environments. Teachers have a great
deal of autonomy on how to improve student outcomes. A process known as “lesson
study” is popular. In this process, teachers research and design a new lesson over a
fixed period of time, and then present it to other teachers in the school for getting
feedback.
Teachers are also known to join together to identify school-wide problems,
whereupon they organize themselves into teams to address these problems. The
teachers’ focus in Japan is mainly on pedagogy and this helps in improving the
quality and equality in the education system of the country. The emphasis is not as
much on absorbing content but on teaching students how to think. In subjects like
Mathematics, teachers encourage critical thinking and problem-solving, rather than

memorization. There is usually a healthy environment and culture of questioning and

discussion in classroom teaching and beyond, to encourage processing of conceptual
questions, high order thinking and independent reasoning. Japan also doesn’t track
students into gifted programs and all students share the same classroom, with the
better students expect to help those who may be struggling. This reduces needless
competition and increases friendships and a positive environment for teaching and
learning.
Efficient distribution of funds in education has also helped Japan. Teachers’ salaries
are paid from both the national and prefectural government. These do not vary as
much based on an area’s property values or some such standard of local basis for
evaluation of pay-scales. The same is true for the funding of building expenses and
other fees. Japan spends a lesser amount on education than many other developed
countries, at 3.3% of its GDP, but this money is spent wisely. There is simplicity in
textbooks that are mostly paperback while schools are simple as well as minimalistic.
Schools also have few staff and administrators, besides following the aforementioned
system of involving students in the cleaning and maintenance of school property.
At the Consortium for Renovating Education of the Future (CoREF), launched in the
University of Tokyo in 2008, a new method and framework for pedagogy was put
forth – the Knowledge Constructive Jigsaw Method. This encourages students to
piece together a deeper understanding of a topic by considering it from multiple
angles and sides, all the while working as part of a group. This method is inherently
against the idea of delivering a static curriculum to a cohort of passive students. This
model rather emphasizes the designing of student-centric lessons, monitoring and
providing feedback on student activity, and collaborating with colleagues to
continuously improve. Since practically monitoring multiple small groups can be a
problem, Japanese schools have recently started using technology to resolve this.
IBM Watson Speech to Text technology in the IBM Cloud was used to help monitor
the quality of student interactions. This helped to fuel the planning and feedback
steps and cycles of the process. So, these days, when teachers create their lesson
plans, they tell Watson which key words they believe would arise during an exercise,
thereby indicating the degree of understanding that the student(s) can have.
Thereafter, IBM Watson records and transcribes the interactions and discussions
among students, all the while scanning for expected key words. The teachers then
review the output from Watson to evaluate the learning outcomes. They then refine
lesson plans and content before archiving the lesson(s) in a database for other
teachers to use. Much like in South Korea, Japan is using digital technology also to
stimulate a creative approach to learning that gives students access to education
materials wherever and whenever they want.
4.5. Education Policy and Practices in Singapore

Singapore has had exemplary education policy and practices over the better part of
the last half-century [22-25]. It topped OECD PISA 2015, wherein around 5,40,000
students in 72 participating countries were tested on science, reading literacy and
mathematics. What can be considered as one of the greatest journeys among Asian
countries in contemporary times, Singapore has gone from being a developing
country to a thriving economy since its independence in 1965! From the beginning,
when the Republic of Singapore was formed, education has been central to the
nation-building project. All children in the country receive a minimum of 10 years of
education in one of Singapore’s 360 schools. Singapore’s students have consistently
performed well on the international scene and were among the top in the world in
science and mathematics on the Trends in International Math and Science Study
(TIMSS) four times, from 1995 to 2007. They also were fourth in literacy in the
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study [22]. For Singaporeans, such a
robust education system was the engine that could drive and sustain economic growth
on the power obtained from its human capital. The successful supply-demand
matching when it comes to education and development of skills in its citizens has
helped Singapore attain a competitive advantage in the global setting.
The importance and central place of education in the vision to taking forward the
country, along with a strong political will towards aligning policy with practice, and
a focus on teacher training and development of leadership capacity to drive reforms
at the school levels, have been key elements in this success story. Ambition, when it
comes to assessment and standards, along with a culture of persistent and continuous
improvement, have helped, along with the tradition of benchmarking policy and
practices against the best in the international education sector. At independence, most
of the country’s population, of around 2 million, was illiterate. The focus of the early
years thereafter was on expanding basic education as rapidly as possible: schools
were built quickly, teachers were recruited on a large scale, a bilingual education
policy was introduced (with English and the student’s own language being taught), a
textbook agency was created and various independent educational institutions were
merged into a single Singaporean education system. These efforts worked
miraculously so well that in 1965 universal primary education had been achieved. By
the late 1970s, Singapore had effectively created a national system of public
education, although quality of education was still under question, with only 35% of
students obtained three or more passes in O-level examinations. In 1979, the Goh
Report [26] was published and this came to be seen as a seminal report that
effectively highlighted the low standards and high dropout rates in the system. By
doing so and suggesting ways of addressing this, it ushered in a new phase of
education reforms in Singapore.
In January 1979, a new education system was introduced in Singapore. The country,
which had had a one-size-fits-all approach in education, moved towards a framework

that created multiple paths for students, depending on interests, capabilities and
pursuits. This was envisioned as a system that would improve quality, reduce drop-
out rates and produce a skilled labour force to spur economic goals of the nation. A
track system based on academic abilities was brought to the fore, so that students
could pursue different stages of schooling at their own pace. There were three kinds
of schools established: academic high schools (that prepared students for college
education), polytechnic high schools (that focused on technical and occupation
training mainly but could also lead to college) and technical institutes (that focused
on technical and occupation training for the ‘lowest fifth of students’).
There was also a curriculum development institute that was established, to produce
high quality instructional material, textbooks and academic resources for the various
paths and schools. This track system helped in reducing drop-out rates, with only 6%
of students leaving school with fewer than 10 years of education, by 1986. All these
steps also helped with standards and performances. Students results went from a 40%
pass rate to a 90% pass rate in O-level English examination by 1984. By 1995, the
country topped the list of countries in Science and Mathematics in TIMSS. From
1992, the nation also invested in the Institute for Technical Education to produce
high-quality technical workers in all levels, with an eye towards improving the
position of blue-collar jobs and to attract companies with sophisticated technological
pursuits (be it in systems of computation or hardware and semi-conductor chips). The
growth of the global knowledge economy in the late 1990s made Singapore assume a
more innovation-based approach in education that focused more on creativity and
research. In this phase, the establishment of the government Agency for Science,
Technology and Research was significant. This agency provides funding for research
and seeks to attract good scientists and scientific companies. Today, the National
University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University have research
partnerships with leading universities around the world with a focus in fields such as
information and communication technology, bioinformatics, nanotechnology and
medicine.
On the schooling front, Singapore created a new educational vision named “Thinking
Schools, Learning Nation”, which was particularly focused on developing creative
thinking and spurring passion for lifelong learning, besides creating a culture where
innovation and creativity flourish at every level of society. The programme
introduced a number of initiatives for aligning education of a student with his/her
abilities and interests, besides providing more choices and flexibility for students.
Teacher education and training were improved, and career paths and incentives for
teachers were looked at closely. Both assessments and curricula were tailored to lay
greater emphasis on creative thinking. One of the greatest steps was the use of
Information and Communication Technology to enable new kinds of collaborative
and self-directed learning. A broader range of courses on disparate subject matters

was created, besides the establishment of different types of schools, as mentioned

previously. School management was also overhauled across the country, with schools
being organized into geographical clusters and given greater autonomy, with Cluster
Superintendents appointed to mentor schools and promote innovation in a cluster.
Moreover, assessment and evaluation of schools was changed to one that was tailored
to align with goals and pursuits of each school. In this system, each school would
annually assess its progress in this way, besides having an external review, every six
years, by the school-appraisal branch of the Ministry of Education, Government of
Singapore. In 2004, the government introduced a system called ‘Teach Less, Learn
More’ that achieved this by opening up more ‘white space’ in the curriculum to
engage students more deeply in independent thinking and learning. Under this
system, experiential learning and discovery, differentiated teaching, building of
character and learning of lifelong skills using innovative teaching strategies were
encouraged. Since a review of primary schools in 2009, there has been a greater
focus on how curiosity and love of play can be used for pedagogy and teaching,
besides looking at how physical education, art and music can be enhanced in the
curriculum. Values have also been prioritized in the education framework.

Figure 4 Singapore’s education system organisation
(Source: Singapore Ministry of Education website: www.moe.gov.sg/education/)
In 2008, the track system was replaced by a subject-based banding system, wherein
at the end of primary 6, all students sit for the Primary School leaving examination in

science, mathematics and languages (English and the student’s mother tongue), and
based on the results of this assessment, students are admitted to one of three
pathways in secondary schools
1. Express Pathway (~60% of students)
2. Normal Academic Pathway (~25% of students)
3. Normal Technical Pathway (~15% of students)
Students who opt for the first option follow a 4-year programme that culminates in
the General Certificate of Education (GCE) O-level examination. Students who opt
for the normal academic pathway/course follow a similar 4-year course that
culminates in a GCE N-level examination and a possible O-level examination in year
5. Students who opt for the third option have a similar 4-year course that culminates
in a GCE N-level examination, and this course prepares them for technical higher
education, postsecondary Institute of Technical Education course or jobs. Recently,
more choice has been offered to students, with elective modules and a wider range of
subjects at the O-level, in secondary school. Students who exhibit university caliber
can study in integrated Programme Schools where they can skip O-levels, and this
arrangement can allow them to engage in learning experiences that help develop their
capacity of creative thinking and their leadership potential. There is also more
horizontal mobility between course and student are allowed to transfer between
streams if they do well. Lately, students can also follow subjects from a different
stream and specific schools have been established that specialize in art, mathematics,
science and sports.
Upon completing 10 years of general education, a student can go to a
1. Junior College (~30% of students)
2. Polytechnic (~45% of students)
3. Institute of Technical Education (~25% of students)
Academically inclined students can take A-levels at this stage and then proceed to
university. Students may also take diploma courses in business or technical subjects
at polytechnic institutes, with some of those who do well in such institutes going to a
university. Students with GCE N-level or O-level can take skill-based certificates in
vocation or technical subjects at Institute of Technical Education. Outstanding
graduates from ITE can go to a university or polytechnic too. Many students also go
to universities abroad.
The linkage of education to economic development is a matter of priority for the
government of Singapore. The focus is on developing specific skills to keep
Singapore globally competitive. The country has a uniquely integrated system of
planning, wherein the Ministry of Manpower (Government of Singapore) works with
economic agencies that are responsible for promoting particular industry groups to

identify needs and project demands, especially around critical manpower, for future
skills. This is then considered and fed into the pre-employment training and
education stage. The government of Singapore believes that this approach helps
students to move faster into growing sectors, targets public funds more efficiently for
post-secondary education and lessens oversupply in areas of declining demand more
quickly. The Ministry of Education, Government of Singapore, along with higher and
post-secondary educational institutions, uses these projections to inform their own
education planning, especially for technical universities, universities and
polytechnics. Today, Singapore is seeking to become a scientific hub and it is
bringing together various aspects of the government, including the Ministry of
Finance, Ministry of Manpower and Ministry of Education in the Government of
Singapore, besides the Urban and Environmental planning bodies, Economic
Development Board as well as Housing and Immigration authorities, on a common
platform to facilitate Singapore’s growth.
In Singapore, there is a close link between policy implementers, researchers and
educators. Policy coherence and consistency in implementation, at the institutional
level, are brought about by the close relationship between the Ministry of Education
(Government of Singapore), National Institute of Education (that is Singapore’s only
institution that trains educators) and schools. While the Ministry develops policy,
NIE researches and provides training to educators. The NIE’s research is fed back to
the Ministry for policy development. In the country, there is a strong alignment
among the examinations, curricula and assessments. The government has begun
incentivizing hard work by students and introduced accountability measures for
teachers and school administrators.
Singapore has shown a commitment to equity and merit. Singapore has taken various
social and educational measures to reduce attainment gaps. Since the causes of
underachievement often lie in social structures such as in dysfunctional families,
Singapore has developed a system of community and local town councils that
identify such issues and provide support, including financial assistance, to families.
In addition, there are self-help community groups that have been set up for each of
the ethnic communities, funded by members of the community. These include the
Malay Mendaki for the Malay, Indian Sinda for Indians and Chinese CDAC for the
Chinese. These groups support children in need, in the community.
Singapore has developed a comprehensive system for selection, training,
compensation and development of teachers and school administrators. Teachers are
recruited by selection from the top one-third of the graduating class of secondary
schools, by panels including school administrators and principals. Academic ability is
the key point of assessment, as is commitment to the task (they must commit to teach
at least for three years) and interesting in serving diverse student bodies. The salaries
for new teachers are competitive, with respect to monthly salare for fresh graduates

in other fields. All incoming teachers must train, either as part of a diploma or a
degree course, at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University (NTU). All new teachers are mentored for the first few years. Recognizing
the need for professional development for teachers in a highly-competitive and fast-
changing world, they are entitled to 100 hours of professional development per year
in Singapore. Teacher networks are well-known in the country, besides there being
professional learning communities that encourage peer-to-peer learning. The
Academy of Singapore Teachers, opened in September 2010, is a good platform to
encourage teachers to share best practices with each other. Performance of teachers is
appraised annually against 16 different competencies in Singapore.

Interactions
Assessing Preparation of Indian Stakeholders for PISA 2021
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."
- Nelson Mandela
The system of school education in India is one of the largest in the world, whose
complexity stems from the country’s need to maintain uniformity and standards of
excellence, along with respecting and nurturing the diversity within the country.
While access has been the key issue that India has tried to address in the first few
decades after Independence, the onus has now slowly moved towards nuances of
quality and seeking to improve learning outcomes [33]. In recent years, the Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan 2001 and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act
2009 have seen education being prioritized across the length and breadth of the
country, along with catalyzing improvements in performance and learning outcomes
of students, teachers, administrators and institutions in the education sector. Locating
quality in the educational discourse is a universal concern in the contemporary world,
and in this regard the Indian education system has seen an increasing emphasis and
focus on syllabus, pedagogy, assessments and evaluations, teacher-training,
affiliation and accreditation standards, besides adequate infrastructure, teaching-
learning material, and adequate numbers of teaching and non-teaching staff. PISA
2021 gives us a golden chance to look at better delivering competency-based learning
and quality assurance in school education.
As part of my project for this policy framework and concept report, I undertook
information gathering exercise, followed by data analysis and qualitative inference,
primarily based on interactions with various stakeholders in India for PISA 2021.
This primarily included all the Chandigarh Union Territory Schools, Kendriya
Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalayas. Having looked at the various nuances of each
stakeholder’s preparation and vision, I believe the school education model of the
Chandigarh Union Territory can be definitely looked up to as an exemplary model,
which I would like to present as a Showcase for Competency-Based Learning here.
However, as per my consultation with members of the Central Board of Secondary
Education, I believe that, in practice, the Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya
Vidyalas are doing better than the Chandigarh state board. If the latter continues on
proposed policy-measures and preparations for PISA 2021, it may turn out to be the
Showcase for India in PISA 2021, which will primarily assess Chandigarh schools
(150 in number), with the 150 combined from Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya

Vidyalayas being assessed for bettering practices in education rather than for the
international assessment.
5.1. Showcase for Competency-Based Learning: School Education in
Chandigarh Union Territory
I interacted with teachers, school-administrators and officials of the Department of
Education of the Chandigarh (Union Territory) administration, particularly with Shri
Rubinderjit Singh Brar, Director of School Education, Chandigarh (UT)
administration. The Department has developed a detailed action-plan for PISA 2021.
I also interacted with Dr. Surender Dahiya, Director of State Council of Educational
Research and Training (SCERT) – Chandigarh, along with Dr. Anil K. Gugnani
(Head of Department, Teacher Education and Faculty, Reading Literacy in SCERT -
Chandigarh), Ms. Sonia Pruthy Sood (Faculty, Science Literacy in SCERT -
Chandigarh), Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur (Faculty, Reading Literacy in SCERT –
Chandigarh), Ms. Shifali Singh (Faculty, Mathematics Literacy in SCERT –
Chandigarh) and Ms. Pooja Sharma (Faculty, Science Literacy in SCERT –
Chandigarh).
With a population density of 9258/km2, Chandigarh falls under the high Human
Development Index (HDI) category. There are 114 Government, 7 Government-
aided, 74 Private recognized and 7 Central Government schools (comprising of 4
Kendriya Vidyalayas, 1 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and 2 Air Force Schools) in
the Union Territory, bringing the number of schools under the Chandigarh
administration to 202. Among the 114 Government schools, there are 8 Primary, 13
Middle, 53 High and 40 Senior Secondary Schools. All the 7 Government-aided
schools are Senior Secondary Schools. Of the 74 Private recognized schools, 5 are
Primary, 12 are Middle, 14 are High and 43 are Senior Secondary Schools. There are
2 High and 5 Senior Secondary Central Government Schools. There are 23360,
89793, 65282, 41600 and 41346 students enrolled in Pre-Primary School, Classes I-
V, Classes VI-VIII, Classes IX-X and Classes XI-XII respectively, in 2018-19, in the
Union Territory. To teach and develop these students, there are 37 Principals, 44
Heads, 454 lecturers, 2601 Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs), 1698 teachers with
Junior Basic Training (JBTs) and 131 teachers with Nursery Teacher Training
(NTTs) in the state, comprising a total faculty of 4965. 105 JBTs and 196 TGTs will
be joining shortly, besides the process for filling up 198 posts of TGTs on deputation
basis ongoing. In terms of recruitment of teachers, selection process for recruitment
of 418 JBTs has been completed, of which 313 teachers have joined already. The
results of the written test for the recruitment of 200 posts of TGTs have been
declared. Recruitment process will be completed within the next two months. 36
teachers have been appointed on deputation basis. Around 60 posts of lecturers will
be filled up through promotion with the next few months. Process of recruitment of 7

posts of Headmasters through direct recruitment under Samagra Shiksha has been
initiated.
For PISA 2021, 106 (of 114) Government schools, 7 (of 7) Government-aided
schools, 69 (of 74) Private recognized schools, 2 (of 7) Central Government Schools
and 7 (of 7) other institutes (including 5 technical and 2 unrecognized schools) are
eligible. In the Union Territory, 16481 students born between February 2004 and
January 2005 will be part of the field trial in 2020 while 18960 students born
between February 2005 and January 2006 will participate in PISA 2021. For the
former (field trial), there are 5, 48, 273, 1122, 5988, 8280, 746, 9 and 10 students
enrolled in V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and Diploma courses respectively, who
were born between 1st February 2004 and 21st January 2005. For the main PISA
2021, there are 13, 162, 990, 5088, 11130, 1550 and 27 students enrolled in V, VI,
VII, VIII, IX, X and XI respectively, who were born between 1 st February 2005 and
31st January 2006.
PISA looks at three broad areas: Reading Literacy, Mathematics and Science. As per
the PISA portal, there are 924 English teachers, 543 Hindi teachers, 633 Mathematics
teachers and 800 science teachers in Chandigarh. Of these 1888 teachers have been
trained and oriented about PISA 2021. Besides this teacher orientation, the
Department of Education, Chandigarh, has begun preparing for PISA 2021 by setting
up two committees
1. Expert Committee with 3 Government and 3 Private school Principals.
2. Administrative Committee comprising of officers/officials of the Directorate
and State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) –
Chandigarh.
There were also three subject-wise expert committees, each consisting of 25 subject
teachers from Government and Private schools, set up in April 2019. The purpose of
these committees is to study the PISA framework and PISA test items, and to suggest
measures that need to be undertaken for reorienting the teaching and learning process
in the context of PISA. 86 subject teachers (with 25 each in English, Mathematics
and Science, 11 in Hindi) have been trained as Master Trainers, who were divided
into 12 groups, after training, and each was allocated 15 Government-aided and
Private schools. 1076 subject teachers were further trained by the Master Trainers.
Of these 400 were Mathematics teachers, 396 English teachers and 280 Science
teachers. 812 teachers were trained by SCERT on experiential learning, PISA
framework, pedagogy and formulation of PISA items in Mathematics, Science and
the languages (of English and Hindi). The 1013 teachers who are yet to be trained
will be trained in the next two months.
Concept mapping has been done in all three domains: Science, Mathematics and
Reading Literacy. A periodic/monthly curriculum for PISA was devised and

integrated into the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)
syllabus, and distributed to all schools with the directions that the teachers should
also teach the skillsets required for PISA, through activities. Modules and sample
practice papers have been prepared by the experts’/resource group and shared with
teachers through Master Trainers. The modules prepared by the experts’ group have
also been shared with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),
Government of India and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for
feedback. Schools in Chandigarh have incorporated PISA-based assessment in the
routine testing schedule to give exposure to students. Modules are being translated
into Hindi and new material for PISA-related learning and evaluation is being
developed, including material of Reading Literacy in Hindi on the pattern of English.
Besides this, an orientation programme for school principals on PISA was organized
by the CBSE on 22 April 2019 for principals and heads of all Government, Private,
Government-aided and Central Government schools, besides the state resource
group. A one-day workshop on experiential learning was organized on 20 May 2019
where experts from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar interacted
with the Mathematics and Science PISA resource groups. This was an introductory
workshop, rather than an in-depth one, and will be followed up by subsequent
workshops on this. On 16 August 2019, the Ms. Anita Karwal, Chairperson of
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), held a workshop on PISA for all the
stakeholders, where schools of Chandigarh were represented. Furthermore, a pilot
project was launched on 23 August 2019 in collaboration with Khan Academy
covering 3000 students of Upper Primary classes in 9 Government schools. Khan
Academy offers instructional videos, practice exercises and tests, and a personalized
learning dashboard in Mathematics, which empowers learners to study at their own
pace in and outside of classrooms.
Among future programmes planned by the Department of Education of Chandigarh
administration, practice assessment on PISA will be conducted in all schools in
September 2019. Master Trainers will prepare demonstrative videos for all teachers,
and SCERT is developing online modules for teacher training in collaboration with
the Chalk Lit app. In terms of issues and challenges faced, training by PISA
international contractors, as per the agreement, on field administration, quality
assurance and marking of open-ended items for the field trials has yet to be
conducted. Moreover, Shri Brar highlighted that no funds have been received for
preparation for PISA 2021 from the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India.
Besides these broad points, there were certain other points of interest, note and
relevance. The administration has been working on the NISHTHA portal for
education in the Union Territory. NISHTHA is a capacity building programme for
"improving quality of school education through integrated teacher training". For a

central portal to upload all results of assessments for competency-based learning, the
Department of Education is working with National Informatics Centre (NIC) to build
a Phoenix portal. Under the broader Phoenix initiative of the Department of
Education, a progress sheet has been devised to identify achievement level as per the
learning outcome through grades A (beyond the expected standards), B (approached
the expected standard), C (approaching the expected standard) and D (not meeting
the expected standard) or star rating. Under the project, officials of the Department
will constitute a monitoring team for school visits. The initiative was launched under
the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, primarily for students in classes I to VIII. There have
also been 14 modules, developed across PISA subjects, and shared with CBSE. An
innovative initiative under the Department has been the No-bag Satudays, where
students have come to school without school-bags (and other educational materials)
on Saturdays and have been taken for field visits to post offices, banks and to see the
functioning of every-day utilities like traffic lights, etc, for experiential learning.
My interaction with officials and members of SCERT-Chandigarh brought to the fore
some of the steps taken by them, which includes
1. Promotion of inter-disciplinarity and integration of subjects. For instance, they
have been looking at ways to integrate Yoga and mathematics in the angles of
Asanas in Yoga.
2. Participatory models where students are active participants in creation of
content and elements of pedagogy (such as inputs for experiments in sciences).
3. Experiential learning with initiatives like field trips.
A point raised here was the lack of flexibility and autonomy of Principals for
activities such as field trips. For instance, a small trip to a public place with
refreshments arranged for students should not have tenders required to be floated for
the same. Dr. Dahiya of SCERT-Chandigarh regarded this as needless red-tapism and
lack of flexibility for Principals and administrators. The need for greater flexibility
and autonomy for them was raised.
- For the sciences, there have been more than 14 meetings with 100 stimulus-
points put forward. The first SCERT module was rolled out on 30 May 2019
while the second (which focused more on competency-based learning) was
rolled out in July 2019. With regards to teacher training in science, 180
teachers from around 300 schools had been trained in the first phased while the
remaining were slated to be trained in the second phase. For scientific literacy,
SCERT-Chandigarh has developed Bloom’s taxonomy to the specific context
of school education for competency-based learning in the sciences.
- For reading literacy, content mapping led to the understanding and creation of
different text format-questions (such as continuous, non-continuous and fixed
format-questions) and associated cognitive skills tested. The various kinds of

questions have various associated process question typology: locating

information, understanding and comprehension, and evaluation and reflection
(particularly with complex and High Order Thinking (HOT) questions). These
have various cognitive processes and aspects used: access and retrieval of
information within text, searching and selection of relevant information,
representation of literal meaning, integration and generation of references,
assessment of quality and credibility of texts, reflection by students on content
and handling of conflict in the texts. The SCERT-Chandigarh has put forth five
aspects of reading assessment with associated weighing
o Forming a broad understanding of the text (20%)
o Retrieving information (20%)
o Developing an interpretation (30%)
o Reflecting on the content of the text (15%)
o Reflecting on the form of the text (15%)
- When it comes to mathematical knowledge and skills, SCERT-Chandigarh has
taken a number of steps. They have worked on a broadened model of
mathematical literacy and looking at challenges in a real-world context. They
have looked at four broad mathematical content categories
o Quantity (focusing on computer simulations)
o Uncertainty and data (focusing on conditional decision making)
o Change and relationships (focusing exponential growth)
o Space and shape (focusing on geometric representations)
The real world context categories such as personal, societal, occupational and
scientific have been looked at, with emphasis on mathematical concepts,
knowledge and skills. Some fundamental concepts that support mathematical
reasoning that SCERT-Chandigarh is looking at, are:
- Number system and their properties
- Structure of mathematics and its regularities
- Mathematics as a system based on abstraction and symbolic
representation
- Variance as the heart of statistics
- Functional relationships between quantities
- Mathematical modeling as a lens to the real world (such as those in
biological, social, physical and economic worlds)
The following chart gives an idea about the cognitive processes used:

In this model of mathematical reasoning, the system goes beyond problem-

solving to focus on mathematical and statistical reasoning, possibly in a real-
world context. Some of the 21st century skills specifically relevant to
mathematics being looked at by SCERT-Chandigarh, include: critical thinking,
creativity, research and inquiry, self-direction, initiative and persistence,
information use, systems thinking, and communication and reflection. In the
four content categories, SCERT-Chandigarh has looked at four cognitive
processes and associated skills:
1. Formulation of situations mathematically
a. Describe
b. Identify
c. Define
d. Relate
2. Employment of conceptual and mathematical tools and
reasoning
a. Information use
b. Research inquiry
c. Critical thinking
d. Creativity
e. Self-direction
f. Initiative
g. Reflection
3. Interpretation of mathematical results
a. Collect
b. Categorize
c. Apply
4. Evaluation of results
a. Conclude

b. Describe
c. Support (with references and other material)
Benchmarking is an important aspect of the SCERT-Chandigarh model in
mathematics. Benchmarks include: learners achieving a breadth of learning,
knowledge-growth, understanding and acquirement of skills required for
mathematical literacy; responding consistently well to problems arising from
real-life problems; demonstrating application of what they have learnt in new
and unexpected situations.
All of these disparate steps, in the spirit of experiential and competency-based
learning make the Chandigarh model an exemplary one.
5.2. Kendriya Vidyalaya: Training Trainers and Developing Key Cognitive
Skills in Students
Kendriya Vidyalayas are important stakeholders in the next cycle of PISA in 2021. I
received an opportunity to interact with officials of the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (KVS) on 28 August 2019. An introductory discussion with Mr. Uday
Narayan Kharware, Additional Commissioner (Academics) of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, helped in understanding the overall approach of the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan towards developing competency-based learning outcomes, particularly
with a focus on PISA 2021. Dr. Shachi Kant, Joint Commissioner (Personnel) of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, and Dr. E. Prabhakar, Joint Commissioner
(Training/Finance) of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, gave me details of the
preparatory details with regard to the run-up to PISA 2021.
There are 1,201 Kendriya Vidyalayas, with 1,196 are in India and three abroad.
12,78,201 students and 45,477 employees are on the rolls as of 20 January 2019.
These Kendriya Vidyalayas have been divided into 25 regions, each headed by a
deputy commissioner. These regions are Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,
Bhubaneshwar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Dehradun, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jabalpur,
Jaipur, Jammu, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna, Silchar, Delhi, Agra, Ranchi,
Raipur, Varanasi, Gurgaon, Tinsukia and Ernakulam. The Head Quarters are in
Delhi. There are also 5 Zonal Education of Education and Training (ZIET): Gwalior,
Mumbai, Chandigarh, Mysore and Bhubaneshwar. Training and evaluation for the
development of competency-based learning and the run-up to PISA 2021 have been
based on this structure.
There have been training modules and workshops for English literacy, science and
mathematics. For English literacy, there have been two phases and associated
sessions for the training of master trainers, who are meant to be the national trainers
for training teachers at the cluster and zonal levels. These workshops have been
based on a participatory model with content creation along the lines sought in PISA

being a key priority. The idea is to have the trainers, both observe and present, on
concepts and subjects, at these workshops. Questions and an associated bank have
been developed by the participants of the workshops, which in turn have been sent to
the KVS Head Quarters and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The
idea is to not only prepare for the PISA Survey in the short term but to develop key
and critical skills in linguistics and reading in the long term. Language training has
been organized with CBSE resource-persons and resource-persons from Trinity
College. Similar training models have been employed for science, with an active
collaboration with Indian Institute of Technology – Gandhinagar.
The first phase of the language training: `Capacity Building for Teachers of English’
was conducted in June 2019, where Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) and Trained
Graduate Teachers (TGTs) teaching classes 11 and 12 were trained. There were two
participants from each KVS zone. There was also one representative - a Teaching
Assistant (TA), from each of the ZIETs. In the training in August 2019, a session of
which I attended and addressed, there were again two representatives from each zone
but this time participants were primarily PGTs. Vice-Principals of schools were also
involved in this phase, with the idea being that PGTs and Vice-Principals can train
others including TGTs and TAs. The outcome of the two phases of training is
expected to be similar workshops conducted by the two participants of the first phase
along with the two participants in the second zone, in a particular zone, for PGTs and
TGTs therein.
In terms of content development in each of these phases and workshops, resources
and sample questions from the OECD website for PISA were referred. Teachers were
trained to tackle various kinds of questions along the lines of the PISA Survey. In the
workshops for the master trainers, the cohort was divided into groups who were
asked to develop questions themselves and mail them to a common email ID. The
improved passages were considered and about the best 20-25 were sent to the KVS
Headquarter and CBSE. The emphasis in this was on different kinds of questions,
scenarios and the cognitive skills being tested. Among the cognitive skills, reflection
and understanding was prioritized. Instead of having questions that simply required a
careful reading of sections and straightforward answers, questions that looked at
competencies and tested comprehension and reflection were preferred. The
coordinators of the programme highlighted that the exposure of the master trainers to
disparate questions and resources, along with the diversity of participants – from
PGTs to TGTs and Vice-Principals, from various parts of the country, with different
specialities within the subject, were important aspects of the experience.
The emphasis was on experiential learning through and through, and questions that
could involve rote-learning was actively discouraged and reduced in numbers. Most
importantly, from my interactions with the members, the key idea put forth was that
preparation for PISA 2021 was not a be-all and end-all in itself but was a way

towards a paradigm shift in the way in which learning and literacy was improved in
the Kendriya Vidyalayas.
5.3. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya: Experiential Learning, Vocational Training
and Competency-Based Assessments
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) is a system of alternate fully-residential and
co-educational schools for gifted students in the country, who are found by the JNVs,
who thereafter provide these students with an education equivalent to the best
residential school system, without regard to their families' socio-economic condition.
They will be part of the survey for competency-based learning and general education
practices by PISA in 2021, and as part of my study of India’s preparation for PISA
2021, I had the opportunity of interacting with officials of the Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti on 29 August 2019 on their preparation for the survey. I specifically spoke to
Mr. Ramachandra Nagappa Addamane (Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti), Mr. G. Arumugam (Joint Commissioner – Personnel) and Mr. T. Sobhan
Babu (Assistant Commissioner – Academic) about actions taken so far and the way
forward for the Samiti.
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti has been pursuing a multi-pronged approach for its
preparation for PISA 2021. To begin with, they shared information on PISA, sample
papers and previous years test items with institutions, teachers, students and even
parents. They have been working with the JNVs on monitoring progress, along with
uploading any and all progress on a central portal. The Samiti has encouraged
students to participate in various academic contests and has also been looking at
sensitizing officers and principals in conferences at different locations about
competency-based learning and PISA 2021. Review meetings are being held
regularly and there has been increased interaction of the Samiti with principals, vice-
principals and teachers in the training courses. Deputed teachers have been asked to
attend orientation and training programmes conducted by CBSE. Reforms in internal
examinations have been suggested and preparation of a training manual in Reading
Literacy is in process. Another important action taken so far is that of preparation of
PISA-like questions by teachers, some of which have been used for practice exercises
and tests.
The way forward for the Samiti include orientation of teachers, particularly master
trainers, after the identification of these master trainers in the various states and
regions. Preparations of students for competency-based practice tests and
participation of students in Mandatory Activities conducted by CBSE are other steps
envisioned by the Samiti for the future. The Samiti would like students to practice
PISA-related questions every month, besides practice of sample question papers
having case-based questions. They have planned the implementation of guidelines on
hubs of learning, experiential learning and integrated learning, besides planning to

encourage teachers to prepare case-based questions on critical thinking and

creativity. The Samiti has also planned to encourage use of the Chalk Lit app by all
teachers and maintaining profiles and portfolios for both teachers and students. Last
but not the least, the Samiti plans to provide the link to the PISA web portal on NVS
and JNV websites.
The Samiti has over the past few months looked closely at registration of students,
preparation of reference manuals and general PISA orientation. To my specific
questions on steps taken by the Samiti for promoting experiential learning, Mr.
Addamane said that they were looking at specific projects for the same:
Solar Lamp Assembly Project: The Samiti has been looking at the
assembly of solar lamps not only as a way to equip students with key
technical skills but also giving them an instantiation of a concept for
which there are 16 references associated with the term ‘solar lamp’ in
the curriculum for classes 6-12.
Telescope Assembly Project: The Samiti has been looking at the
assembly of telescopes not only as a way to equip students with key
technical and scientific skills but also giving them an instantiation of a
concept for which there are 68 references associated with the term
‘telescope’ or other associated terms such as ‘stars’, ‘celestial bodies’, et
al, not only in the sciences but in languages and literature, in the
curriculum for classes 6-12. In this way, the concept of telescope,
cutting across subjects, was given importance. In this specific project,
320 schools participated. A workshop over 5 days was also organized
with selected students and one teacher.
Lectures: The Samiti has started organizing lectures for interactions on
critical skills and know-how on a number of subjects and competencies.
In my interaction, I was told that about 35-40 experts from various
fields, from carpentry to banking and gardening and even journalism,
were identified near Navodaya Vidyalayas, and these experts were
thereafter invited for delivering lectures to students, along with hands-on
exercises and experimentation on the theories and concepts discussed.
Foldscope Project: There are a number of references on microscopes in
school curricula and the assembly of a foldscope was a great way for
promoting experiential learning.
Within internal examinations, reforms had been introduced within Navodaya
Vidyalayas even before the plan for PISA 2021 was set up. According to the
officials, 10% of competency-based questions were part of internal
examinations. Interestingly, while the students have been said to be

comfortable with this development, the teachers have displayed apprehensions

about being able to handle these fundamental changes in examination and
pedagogy.
Mr. Addamane highlighted that this could largely be due to the competency of
teachers and hopes to see adequate training offset this problem. With the relevant
training of master trainers and teachers still in the pipeline, I would not like to
comment on whether the training will help in reducing the apprehensions of teachers.
The orientation of teachers is slated for December 2019.
Notable Steps Taken/Proposed

In this section, I shall look at some of the primary steps taken or proposed by all the
three stakeholders, in a summary, before moving on to the work being done by the
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
Chandigarh Board Schools
1. One day per week integrated classroom, with art, music and physical education
part of the integrated classrooms.
2. Setup 100 expert teachers to observe classrooms.
3. Mandatory reading exercise in each subject with one period per subject per
week for the same.
4. Mapping real-life examples to already PISA-curriculum mapped concepts for
classes 6 to 10 for all topics.
5. Student observation to be done using a mobile, observation app to be
developed by CBSE. The rubric for this was sought and discussed in the
meeting on 13th September 2019 at the Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE).
6. A baseline test was organized on 20 August 2019. Child-wise and school-wise
tracking is being looked into, along with child mentoring after the test.
7. Ten answer sheets per class in classes 7, 8 and 9 per school (30 from each
school) will be shared with EkStep for data analysis by 7 September 2019.
8. Newspaper reading, as a habit, shall be inculcated in students, as part of their
curriculum.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
1. Training of master trainers in workshops and training sessions.
2. Content creation for Creativity and Critical Thinking (CCT) test.
3. Participation in CBSE baseline test in September.
4. On the last working day of every month, teachers and students have been asked
to frame CCT-type questions. Such questions have been proposed to be
included in regular tests and examinations.

5. Each Monday, one block of two periods will be dedicated to CCT activities.
6. Distribution of training handbook for competency-based learning.
7. Preparation of master-trainer training material for three-day training.
8. Making master trainers take the test sample before the students do.
9. Two test items will be given to each student per week for assessment.
10.Identification of students with special needs.
11.Regular monitoring to ensure effective translation of training manual in
classroom.
12.Mentoring of students, with 20 students per teacher, shall be carried out.
Progress has been made on this front.
Navodaya Vidyalaya
1. Dissemination of training manuals.
2. Conducting training-workshops of Master Trainers.
3. Meetings of regional heads for review and strategy for preparations for PISA
2021.
4. Preparation of one set of full test items in Mathematics, Science and Reading
Literacy.
5. Updating of student database.
6. Identification of students with special needs.
7. Preparation and conduction of a competency-based test in Mathematics,
Science and Reading literacy.
8. Conducting of mentoring programme, with 20 students mentored by one
teacher.
9. Sharing of mapped curriculum by CBSE (Concept to Competence).

A Way Forward
Policy Suggestions
Having closely studied the nuances of competency-based learning and best practices,
both in the national and international setting, in this section, I shall be suggesting
specific policy suggestions for general development of competency-based learning in
India, with a specific emphasis on preparation for PISA 2021.
The key goal and policy-suggestion that I would like to promote through this report is
as follows:
The establishment of a competency-based learning framework in the country
that promotes critical reasoning and independent thinking in students with
emphasis on design-thinking, differentiated teaching, vocational training,
benchmarking, capacity-building of teachers and a student-paced, self-
diagnostic evaluation system.
With regards to PISA 2021, there are specific suggestions that I would like to put
forth.
1. The students must be repeatedly tested on HOTs questions, possibly in the
PISA format.
a. I would like to suggest a weekly class-based and a monthly competency-
based school-wide test for all students, in schools.
b. The standard and level of these questions must be of the highest order,
and I would like to suggest an Excellence and Quality Assurance
working group in each board or school that looks at this, to promote
meritocracy and optimum performance in PISA 2021.
c. I would also like to suggest tie-ups with independent bodies and
international assessments, wherever possible, to align standards and
performance with international expectations. This could be TIMSS or
other such tests.
There must be review sessions to gauge progress of students on this and
possible interventions and changes to the preparation, wherever required.
2. Competency-based questions must be added to internal tests, assessments and
examinations in schools. Such questions, discussions and ways of learning
should also be encouraged by projects, within and across subjects. Emphasis
should be on independent reasoning and critical thinking.
3. Development of question-banks that have questions that spur cognitive
processes like understanding and reflection must be prioritized.
a. A participatory model where students can feed into the process of
creating the question bank must be encouraged.

b. Crowd-sourcing of High Order Thinking questions and feeding into

existing and dynamic question banks must be encouraged.
c. Teachers and school-administrators must have monthly meetings to
discuss additions to this question bank and ways to use it within the
school curriculum, evaluation and framework.
These questions can be used in school-level tests as well. This will reduce rote-
learning and spur independent thinking.
4. Training of all teachers on competency-based learning is crucial, and should be
improved and increased at all levels, with review meetings organized within
schools and bodies to see if learning outcomes have been achieved. If not, it
must be flagged and reviewed in a timed manner. I would like to suggest the
setting up of a competency-based learning working group in each school that
looks at training and coordination of activities on competency-based learning.
5. The development of a self-diagnostic and student-paced testing and pedagogy
platform (possibly a software/app) would be useful in this regard, possibly by
working with CBSE and EkStep on the lines followed by Khan Academy in
making its mathematics dashboard for the Chandigarh Union Territory schools.
This will go a long in promoting competency-based learning and also
differentiated teaching.
6. Connecting teaching with industry and the community.
a. This could be by encouraging students to avail internships with
industrial groups and entities on conceptual points and projects.
b. Hosting lectures by resource-persons within the community. They could
be anyone, from esteemed academics and scientists to bankers and
carpenters (for more practical, vocational training related points).
c. Encouraging students to participate in class exercises, contests and
competitions that involve inquiry-based learning and spur experiential
learning and application of concepts learned in real life. One such
competition is the National Children’s Science Congress (NCSC).
7. Establishing peer-to-peer networks within schools and structured group for
looking at concepts from multiple angles. This could be in an extra High Order
Thinking (HOT) Hour in the school framework and timetable.
8. More interaction with the students is required to broaden their vision and to
‘learn how to learn’. This could be by hosting workshops that look at aspects
of competency-based learning, experiential learning, conceptual
understanding, critical thinking and independent reasoning.
9. Devising a ‘Challenge your Peer/Teacher’ scheme whereby students shall try
to find or think of and pose a challenging, conceptual problem to their peers or
teacher, who will have to answer in a timed manner. If they are unable to do
so, the questioning student could be awarded points. If the peer can, in a peer-
centred model, the peer shall get points. What this does is that it incentivizes
the student to reach out widely and think deeply about different kinds of

conceptual questions in a subject area. At the end of the exercise, the student
and his/her peer(s)/teacher(s) could sit down and solve the problem
completely, together.
10.More emphasis should be given on a participatory, constructivist approach to
teaching and learning. Constructivist teaching is based on the belief that
learning occurs as learners are actively involved in a process of meaning
and knowledge construction as opposed to passively receiving information.
a. Promoting Differentiated Teaching in school education in India,
wherever possible, in active collaboration with NCERT and SCERT.
The most practical and realizable solution to this would be in the form of
layered curriculum.
b. Instead of having the students relying on given or someone else’s
information and accepting it as truth, students should be exposed to data,
primary sources, and the ability to interact with other students so that
they can learn from the incorporation of disparate knowledge-sources
and experiences. There could be one concept or question in each class-
session that could be taught with a constructivist approach, where
sources (such as books, statistics, journals and newspapers) are
suggested instead of giving the student information in textbook chapters,
and the student is asked to think about the same and present an essay on
the same.
c. There could be a weekly or fortnightly session where students are
allocated topics or subjects to study in-depth and become ‘experts’ in the
topic, and then to host a session where they teach/discuss the same with
their peers.
d. Ending each lesson or teaching session with an open-ended question
relating to the subject or topic taught which could be discussed in the
next session or class, or the students could submit an essay on the same.
11.More emphasis and time should be given to interdisciplinary learning and
knowledge application
a. I would like to suggest the setting up of an Interdisciplinary Learning
Hour every fortnight, wherein teachers of two or more subjects shall
conduct activities with students that are interdisciplinary in nature. This
could be discussions or creative learning exercises.
b. I would like to suggest each board and/or school to set up an
Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning (ITL) committee that shall look
at ways of promoting interdisciplinary learning in schools.
c. There could be atleast one question in class tests that could be
interdisciplinary in nature and draws on student’s understanding of
concepts across subjects.
d. Extra points or narrative commendation could be given to students for a
comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach used in a class project.

e. Concepts and points learned in class must be used in the real world for
encouraging knowledge application. This could be done using field trips
and real-life situations used in classroom teaching, wherever applicable.
One could have one integrated classroom day, possibly Saturday, for
promoting this kind of learning, with the idea being to prioritize
experiential learning and knowledge application.
i. In the integrated classroom day, one could have a theme for
learning, with multiple sessions by teachers from various subjects
looking at a concept or topic from multiple angles. For instance,
one could learn about plants and animals using biology
(classification and scientific knowledge), English literacy (reading
about plants and animals in prose and poetry), music and art
(renditions on plants and animals) and even economics (use of
plants and animals on economy and adverse effects of harm to
plants and animals).
f. Trips and collaborations with bodies such as the National School of
Drama, poetry associations, independent groups and industries should be
set up to give students and teachers exposure to various sides and
dimensions of a subject or topic. This will also help with giving them a
long-term perspective and broader vision in learning.
12.Creation of a central portal for uploading and updating learning outcomes and
results of assessments/evaluations for giving a perspective to students and
teachers across the country, for effective benchmarking and to track progress.
This could be linked with international standards, outcomes and results too.
a. The MHRD with CBSE could send each school a student report as well
as a school report comparing them to other schools and the international
averages.
b. In this report, the administrators can highlight for each student the areas
that teachers need to work on.
c. Schools can train students to use alternative assessment strategies, such
as self-assessment, and they could provide narrative feedback in
addition to the quantitative scores.
13.Use of innovative ways of explanation (such as analogies and thought
experiments), resources (such as audio-visual resources) and interdisciplinary
insights by students for conceptual understanding in class-projects and
interactions must be encouraged with awarding of HOTs points and a
commendation/certificate for the student with highest HOTs points at the end
of a quarter-year. An example could be how one could explain gene-bonding
or quantum physics using a clip from a popular movie.
14.Large student-to-teacher ratio creates problems with pedagogy and teaching.
Recruitment of teachers across the three boards must be encouraged, to fill the
vacancies that remain.

a. There must be training of all incoming teachers on pedagogy and

competency-based learning.
b. Funds for PISA training and other activities must be released to the
various boards.
15.Compilation of information on Hardspots and common misconceptions in
things like solving problems in Mathematics, Science and Reading Literacy.
16.Training of teachers and school-administrators on gauging and helping with
student disabilities, both hidden and visible, as per the guidelines set by the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
17.In the absence of a tracked secondary education system like in Belgium and
Finland, there is a need to push career tracking by counseling and intervention
at various stages in schools (possibly once in class 8 th, then subsequently in
classes 11th and 12th), possibly with a dedicated career counselor in each
school. This should be done with the aim of helping students acquire key skills
and competencies that may be relevant to their personal goals, abilities and
plans moving forward.
18.Creation of a National Competency-Based Learning Institution (NCBLI) in the
country to promote competency-based learning, critical thinking and
independent reasoning in the country.
Suggestions for Competency-Based Learning

PISA 2021 is an opportunity to bring long-term changes in the education system. It
provides with the chance to fundamentally alter the way teaching and learning is
done in the country. In this section, I would like to provide suggestions for the same.
Emphasis on High-Order Thinking and Benchmarking
The inclusion of High-Order Thinking (HOT) questions in assessments and
examinations of students has helped spur the interest of educators and students alike
to focus on relevant and associated dimensions of teaching and learning. However, as
part of my interactions and study, the one aspect that came to the fore is the need for
1. Benchmarking and comparison with international standards of High-Order
Thinking questions.
2. A dynamic mechanism to improve standards of these questions with active
input and feedback from students and teachers.
I would therefore suggest the establishment up of a central working group for
looking at research, benchmarking and evolution of High-Order Thinking questions,
conceptual understanding and competency-based learning across the various boards
and institutions of schooling in the country. This can be done with CBSE, ICSE,
NCERT, State Boards and other independent groups.

Even within standard tests and examinations, answers that explore alternate ways of
answering a question or ways in which a student provides interesting and innovative
insight into a solution and subject-area should be rewarded with High-Order
Thinking (HOT) Points (which need not be the same as standard marks). What can be
construed as HOT can be against an evolving reference repository of ways of
tackling a certain question or subject-matter.
I would also like to suggest three other policy suggestions:
1. Cooperative Learning: Creation of a peer-to-peer network of students,
teachers and school administrators on competency and competency-based
learning. This shall have a forum to discuss points of interest with regards to
these specific dimensions of teaching and learning.
2. Paced, Self-Diagnostic Evaluation and Learning: Creation of a platform and
an app or software, tentatively named CompeTENT, which can assess the
understanding and knowledge of a student, using an online test-format that is
paced (allows the students to move along at their pace, and yet in a timed
manner) and self-diagnostic (provides questions based on previous answers of
students and the understanding displayed in those answers). This dynamic,
evolving test pattern shall also focus on key competencies and learning
outcomes targeted. This can also be done in collaboration with EkStep or other
portals that are being worked with, for PISA 2021.
3. Creation of a central portal to upload assessment outcomes to create a
nationwide benchmark. This portal shall contain information on performance
in key competency-based learning outcomes, somewhat similar to that being
operated by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. This shall facilitate benchmarking
across schools and boards in the country.
4. Promotion of Problem-based Learning and `White Space’ model of education
in schools. This is a student-centered, inquiry-based model of instruction and
pedagogy in which students engage with a genuine, ill-structured problem that
requires further research. In this model, students identify gaps in their
knowledge, conduct research, and apply this learning to develop solutions and
thereafter present their findings. This could be an instance of the ‘white space’
model that looks at improving independent thinking and the filling-in-the-gaps
in a course assessment and content by the students themselves.
Multi-angle Approach to, and Design Thinking in, Education
One specific area that needs to be looked at closely is the multi-angle approach to,
and design thinking in, school education that is prioritized in countries like Japan and
Singapore. In this aspect, there are three broad suggestions that I would like to put
forward:

1. Creation of an intra-class group-analysis system – CompAIR (Competency-

based Platform to Air Multi-Angle Approach to Learning), wherein students
shall be divided into groups of 5-10 students and shall be asked to look at a
central subject-matter from a certain specific angle. For example, while one
group can look at the technical and scientific details of ‘iridescence in nature’,
another group can look at the literary aspects of color and iridescence as a
literary tool of understanding.
2. Within examinations and class-tests, emphasis should be given on a
comprehensive understanding of concepts. This could be my providing HOT
points or extra marks for this, or by acknowledging and commending the
students for such an approach.
3. Encouragement of projects and articles/papers by school students that touch
upon Interdisciplinarity and are ideally at the intersection of two or more
subjects. This could be done by merging the requirement for project
submission of two or more subjects within the school curriculum.
4. Possible long-term development of online content that has links in multiple
webpages that link various specific and important aspects of a subject-matter
or concept, which can be independently explored by a student based on their
own pace.
5. Design-thinking in School Education is crucial, and involves the following
five key steps:
a. Empathizing with the needs of students and seeing how the stakeholders
(primarily the students) are receiving the teaching and learning
experience can only be done by beginning with understanding their
perspectives and situations, be it in terms of interests, capabilities or
personal experiences.
b. Knowing from the various stakeholders: teachers, students and parents
about any problem that a certain element of the educational framework
poses, and clearly defining the problem.
c. During the ideation step, one often works in groups that represent all the
staff-stakeholders in the process, such as teachers, librarians and
administrators, to generate as many solutions as there can be to the
problems that have been defined. Often, the ‘blue sky approach’ is used,
wherein one is allowed maximum space and freedom to explore all
possible solutions without thinking of logistical or monetary constraints.
Innovative solutions are seen to arise from such freedom and space, and
once the most actionable solutions are identified, one looks at the
prototyping phase.
d. Prototyping involves taking the idea honed in on towards actual
realization. Revisions are encouraged in this phase and the prototype
could go through multiple iterations before finalizing on a design or
concept. This approach encourages flexibility, agility and willingness to

work through the problem until the optimal solution is obtained. This
happens with active consultation ongoing with various stakeholders, so
as to not only get the best output but also maximum buy-in from all
sides.
e. The last stage is of testing to see which prototype works and which
doesn’t. Failures are projected not as an end-in-themselves, in this
approach, but rather an opportunity to learn from them and create better
solutions. Course corrections are made based on observation and
feedback in this phase.
Design thinking in school education focuses on developing the students’
creative confidence. Teachers and students engage in hands-on design
challenges.
These challenges focus on being action-oriented, encouraging ideation,
developing meta-cognitive awareness and fostering problem solving,
critical reasoning and independent thinking.
Teacher Training, Feedback and Differentiated Teaching
The crucial cog in the wheel of teaching and learning are the teachers. In this it is key
to train teachers across the country. The model assumed by Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti are efficient and can be developed
further.
1. Creation of Competency-Zones and Hubs, and identification of Master
Trainers who can be trained at the national level, primarily in Reading
Literacy, Science and Mathematics.
2. Training of teachers in each zone/hub by Master Trainers in a phased, year-
long programme. The importance of competency-based learning, High Order
Thinking and experiential learning must be emphasized.
3. Creation of a dynamic question-bank, tentatively named Qb, created by
teachers and school-administrators, and which shall be open to evolution,
addition and edition. The key emphasis here is too look at important cognitive
processes like understanding and reflection, and not just rote-learning or
memorization. The access to this central question-bank can be given to
teachers and school-administrators alike.
4. Mechanism for feedback by teachers and school-administrators, particularly
around challenges faced or best practices adopted or developed in the teaching
experience.
5. Looking at aspects and possibilities of Differentiated Teaching, particularly to
address issues and challenges faced by students facing problems in the learning
experience. The philosophy of differentiated teaching provides students a
range of different avenues for understanding new information, be it in terms of

acquiring content; processing ideas and/or developing teaching materials and

assessment measures, so that all the students in a diverse classroom, can learn
effectively, regardless of differences in ability. There are the following key
elements of this philosophy and framework:
a. Pre-assessments: The goal of pre-assessment is to determine a student's
understanding, knowledge and skills prior to the unit of study, usually
either by identifying learning interests and preferences (using tools such
as Kinesthetic Learner or Gardner's Multiple Intelligence test), or by
identifying the understanding and knowledge of students (using tools
such as quizzes, class discussion and anticipation guides).
b. Ongoing Assessment: Teachers need to assess students regularly by
gathering information from assignments, observations, discussions and
quizzes/tests, to inform instructional strategy, learn about the student’s
interests and capabilities, and to improve the learning experience of the
student. This could be using formative, diagnostic and summative
assessments, which could be based on self-assessment, peer evaluation
or teacher-assessments. This can be used to understand the issues,
challenges and specific interventions required for a student.
c. Content Differentiation: Differentiation in content could help in helping
students with different understanding and outcomes from pre-assessment
optimally learn concepts covered. In such an exercise, the teacher can
differentiate the content by designing elements of pedagogy that cover
various areas of Bloom’s Taxonomy. For instance, students who are
unfamiliar with concepts could complete tasks on lower level of
Bloom’s taxonomy, while students with some degree of mastery can be
asked to complete tasks in the areas of application, analysis and
comprehension of a concept, and students with high levels of mastery
can be asked to complete tasks in synthesis and evaluation of concepts.
Teachers can also have a pair-centered, group-centered on individual-
centered approach that could look at allocating resources and ways of
learning to each group/pair/individual based on capabilities and
conceptual understanding of students in a group. Layered curriculum
could offer student a choice of assignments and tasks, in a way that is an
efficient instantiation of content differentiation, particularly for large
cohorts.
d. Process Differentiation: Differentiation of process of education may
also be required. This shall allow students to learn based on whatever
method is easiest for them to gain knowledge or whatever method may
challenge them the most. Some students may prefer reading, some may
prefer listening while still others may prefer manipulating objects and a
more hands-on experience for learning. Instead of having a single way,
information and knowledge could be disseminated in multiple ways by

teachers, who could use areas of Multiple Intelligences to provide

learning opportunities, based on the available resources and methods.
The way forward for differentiated teaching could be determined by the

proposed task-force for better competency-based learning, in collaboration
with the various stakeholders. NCERT and SCERT could help with a
layered curriculum and other forms of content differentiation, while CBSE
could broadly look at process differentiation, pre- and ongoing assessments,
and monitoring.
Vocational Training and Structured Higher Education
There is an urgent need to prioritize vocational training further in the school system.
Organizations like NIESBUD, SKDRDP and NTTF have been focusing on
vocational training and practical education that is relevant to a student’s employment
chances and immediate environs and opportunities. One has to emphasize this in our
school system. I would suggest a few steps on these lines:
1. The need of the hour in India, for promoting vocational training, is an
inclusive education system that gives equal priority to education and skilling,
with assured quality of skilling. Apprenticeships could go a long way in
helping towards achieving this goal.
2. Active tie-ups with industries and sectors of the economy to spur vocational
and job-specific training in a Dual Model. Learning concepts and
competencies in such a setting is time-based and relevant. This could be as
varied as mathematics and statistics in banking to chemistry in petroleum
industry and quantum physics in information systems.
3. Looking at the possibility of a uniform national framework to devise a
structured secondary school system that allows for general, vocational,
technical and possibly even arts-based learning. This could be by unifying the
Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector and integrating it with the
larger secondary education sector. The tracks should enable students thus:
a. General education could help with pursuing university education
thereafter.
b. Technical education could help with industry-oriented courses for higher
studies and job-markets in these areas. University education could also
be pursued with an additional year of orientation and training.
c. Vocational education lays emphasis primarily on vocational training and
is fairly job-centred.
d. Arts-based education is to spur fine arts and artistic pursuits in a timed
manner.

4. Conducting of surveys, assessments and evaluations by the Government to

collect data on skill providers and skill gaps by sector. Such data can guide
evidence-based policy-making.
Use of Technology in Education
Technology has been at the forefront of teaching and learning around the world, in
recent years. I believe the power of technology should be used for better teaching and
learning. My specific policy suggestions on this front includes
1. A central repository of educational resources for students and teachers,
tentatively named Educate+, developed in association with CBSE, ICSE,
NCERT and other independent bodies. The idea for content creation and
course alignment should be to not use this as it is, but to develop content, style
of delivery and goals by schools and educators themselves, depending on
priority areas, expectations and community realities. Emphasis, again, should
be on targeting those cognitive abilities that can spur competency-based
learning, critical thinking and independent reasoning.
a. In rural and semi-urban areas, this central repository could be accessed
on economical tablet PCs or community computational facilities.
2. Possible use of IBM Watson for creating a programme whereby teachers can
broadly define the key points, concepts and competencies they would like to
cover in a programme or course, and then allowing discussions and thought by
students, along the lines so defined, to take forward the learning experience.
3. Possible use of Artificial Intelligence to look at ways to create a dynamic,
intelligent system that receives responses on concepts, competencies and
assessments, and develops conceptual tools, questions and learning outcomes
based on this, in an evolving manner.

Conclusions
The importance of competency-based learning and conceptual understanding in
school education cannot be understated. Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) 2021 has given us an opportunity to review and develop the
education system in India to promote and encourage critical reasoning and
independent thinking.
In this project, I have conducted an extensive literature review, consultation with
stakeholders (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and
Chandigarh State Board schools) and study of international models, in Belgium,
Brazil, Finland, Japan and Singapore, for best practices in education and pedagogy.
The key goal and policy-suggestion that I would like to promote through this report is
as follows:
The establishment of a competency-based learning framework in the country
that promotes critical reasoning and independent thinking in students with
emphasis on design-thinking, differentiated teaching, vocational training,
benchmarking, capacity-building of teachers and a student-paced, self-
diagnostic evaluation system.
I look at this preparation as a means towards developing the Indian school education
system to align with international standards of competency-based learning and I hope
this report shall help in that direction.

Acknowledgement
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, under the leadership of Shri Ramesh Pokhriyal
‘Nishank’, Union Minister of Human Resource Development, for giving me this
opportunity to look at the nuances, realities and way forward towards developing
competency-based learning and educational best practices in India, particularly with
an emphasis on preparations for Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2021.
I would like to particularly thank Shri Maneesh Garg (Joint Secretary SE – I), Mr. B.
V. C. Purushottam (Personal Secretary to Union Minister of Human Resource
Development), Mr. Omkar Marathe (Additional Personal Secretary to Union Minister
of Human Resource Development) and Mr. S. S. Rawat (SO TS-III A) in the Ministry
of Human Resource Development, Government of India.
I also got the opportunity to interact with officials and teachers of the Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. I would like to thank Mr.
Uday Narayan Kharware, (Additional Commissioner - Academics), Dr. Shachi Kant
(Joint Commissioner - Personnel) and Dr. E. Prabhakar (Joint Commissioner -
Training/Finance) of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. I would also like to thank
Mr. Ramachandra Nagappa Addamane (Deputy Commissioner), Mr. G. Arumugam
(Joint Commissioner – Personnel) and Mr. T. Sobhan Babu (Assistant Commissioner
– Academic) of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.
I interacted with teachers, school-administrators and officials of the Department of
Education of the Chandigarh (Union Territory) administration, particularly with Shri
Rubinderjit Singh Brar, Director of School Education, Chandigarh (UT)
administration, whom I would like to acknowledge, along with Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
Assistant Project Coordinator, Educational Management Information
System (EMIS), and Mr. Sunil Bedi, Assistant Director, Adult Education (AE). I
would also like to acknowledge Dr. Surender Dahiya, Director of State Council of
Educational Research and Training (SCERT) – Chandigarh, along with Dr. Anil K.
Gugnani (Head of Department, Teacher Education and Faculty, Reading Literacy in
SCERT - Chandigarh), Ms. Sonia Pruthy Sood (Faculty, Science Literacy in SCERT
- Chandigarh), Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur (Faculty, Reading Literacy in SCERT –
Chandigarh), Ms. Shifali Singh (Faculty, Mathematics Literacy in SCERT –
Chandigarh) and Ms. Pooja Sharma (Faculty, Science Literacy in SCERT –
Chandigarh).

I would like to acknowledge Ms. Anita Karwal, Chairperson, Central Board of

Secondary Education (CBSE) and Dr. Joseph Immanuel, Director (Academics),
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). I would like to acknowledge Mr.
Rajnish Kumar, Director, Department of School Education, Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Government of India, and Dr. Biswajit Saha, Director of
Skill Education and Training, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
I would also like to acknowledge Bro. Alex, Ms. Rakhi Thapar, Ms. Sangita Vats,
Ms. Abha Kakkar, Ms. Ragashri Pillai, Ms. Meena Seth, Mr. Sunit Jojo, Ms.
Meenakshi Gupta, Ms. Rose Angela and Ms. Bhavana Kapoor, Faculty (Montfort
School, Delhi – affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education).

References
[1] Kingdon, Geeta Gandhi. "The progress of school education in India." Oxford
Review of Economic Policy 23.2 (2007): 168-195.
[2] Kalyanpur, Maya. "Equality, quality and quantity: challenges in inclusive
education policy and service provision in India." International Journal of Inclusive
Education 12.3 (2008): 243-262
[3] Kingdon, Geeta. "The quality and efficiency of private and public education: a
case‐study of urban India." Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 58.1 (1996):
57-82.
[4] Kaushal, Mona. "Implementation of Right to Education in India: Issues and
Concerns." Journal of Management & Public Policy 4.1 (2012).
[5] Report of the Secretary-General, Special edition: progress towards the
Sustainable Development Goals, Report (2019).
[6] Sripati, Vijayashri, and Arun K. Thiruvengadam. "India: Constitutional
amendment making the right to education a Fundamental Right." International
Journal of Constitutional Law 2.1 (2004): 148-158.
[7] Kremer, Michael, et al. "Teacher absence in India: A snapshot." Journal of the
European Economic Association3.2-3 (2005): 658-667.
[8] Gouda, Jitendra, et al. "Government versus private primary schools in India: An
assessment of physical infrastructure, schooling costs and
performance." International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 33.11/12 (2013):
708-724.
[9] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Gazette
of India. 27 August 2009.
[10] NCERT, Training. National curriculum framework 2005. No. id: 1138. 2007.
[11] Government of India. "Learning without, burden: Report: of the National
Advisory Committee." (1992).
[12] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education Policy
Outlook, BELGIUM. Report (2017).
[13] OECD (2018a), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.

[14] OECD (2018b), "How is the tertiary-educated population evolving?", Education

Indicators in Focus, No. 61, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/a17e95dc-en.
[15] Bruns, Barbara, David Evans, and Javier Luque. Achieving world-class
education in Brazil: The next agenda. The World Bank, 2011.
[16] Bursztyn, Leonardo. "Poverty and the political economy of public education
spending: Evidence from Brazil." Journal of the European Economic
Association 14.5 (2016): 1101-1128.
[17] Aho, Erkki, Kari Pitkanen, and Pasi Sahlberg. "Policy Development and Reform
Principles of Basic and Secondary Education in Finland Since 1968. Education
Working Paper Series. Number 2." Human Development Network Education(2006).
[18] Holm, Gunilla, and Monica Londen. "The discourse on multicultural education
in Finland: Education for whom?." Intercultural education 21.2 (2010): 107-120.
[19] Niemi, Hannele. "The societal factors contributing to education and schooling in
Finland: The Finnish education: Equity and quality as its main objectives." Miracle
of education. Brill Sense, 2016. 23-40.
[20] Niemi, Hannele, Auli Toom, and Arto Kallioniemi, eds. Miracle of education:
The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools. Springer,
2016.
[21] OECD. Japan, Results from Pisa 2015. Report (2015).
[22] OECD. Strong Performers and Successful reformers in education: Lessons from
PISA for the United States. Report (2010).
[23] Tan, Jason, and Saravanan Gopinathan. "Education reform in Singapore:
towards greater creativity and innovation?." (2000).
[24] Selvaratnam, Viswanathan. Innovations in higher education: Singapore at the
competitive edge. The World Bank, 1994.
[25] Deng, Zongyi, and S. Gopinathan. "PISA and high-performing education
systems: Explaining Singapore’s education success." Comparative Education 52.4
(2016): 449-472.
[26] Singapore. Education Study Team, and Keng Swee Goh. Report on the Ministry
of Education 1978. Singapore National Printers, 1979.
[27] Spady, William G. "Competency based education: A bandwagon in search of a
definition." Educational researcher 6.1 (1977): 9-14.

[28] John B. Carroll. A Model of School Learning. Teachers College Record, 64

(1963): 723-733.
[29] James H. Block, ed. Mastery Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1970.
[30] Benjamin S. Bloom. Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976.
[31] W.E. Blank, The competency-based approach to education and training',
Handbook for Developing Competency-Based Training Programs, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982, pp.3-27.
[32] Pandey, Saroj. "Para-teacher scheme and quality education for all in India:
Policy perspectives and challenges for school effectiveness." Journal of Education for
Teaching 32.3 (2006): 319-334.
[33] British Council. Indian School Education System: An Overview. Report (2014).

Competency Based Education in Indian SCH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competency Based Education in Indian SCH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competency-based Education in Indian

Schools: Realities and Vision for the

Dr. Mrittunjoy Guha Majumdar,

under the aegis of

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

2.2. Ensuring Quality in School-based Education

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Thinking beyond the Box

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

In traditional programmes, teachers are mainly and primarily relied upon to

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

We should focus more on differences in learning and less on differences in

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Figure 1 Tasks to be accomplished to develop a competency-based education program [31]

Given above is a succinct and summary description of the way to design a

3.2. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

evaluate educational systems by measuring the scholastic performance of 15-year-old

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

many countries and economies choose to gather further information

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

A Dialogue of Policy and Practice

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Billions of Brazilian Real

There was a reauthorization and expansion of FUNDEF as Fundo de Manutenção e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

education outcomes, including grade progression, retention rates, attendance,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

memorization. There is usually a healthy environment and culture of questioning and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

was created, besides the establishment of different types of schools, as mentioned

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Figure 4 Singapore’s education system organisation

(Source: Singapore Ministry of Education website: www.moe.gov.sg/education/)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

questions have various associated process question typology: locating

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

In this model of mathematical reasoning, the system goes beyond problem-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455647