Can good education happen in small schools?

or

Can good education happen only in large schools

with small classrooms?

Preamble

Much of educational practice seems to suggest that good education, of a high quality, happens in classrooms where there is the possibility of good relatedness between students and teacher. Relatedness is directly connected to listening to each other, which creates an atmosphere conducive to learning. Classroom sizes have been steadily dwindling. Recommended class sizes in India today are between 25 and 35.

Can schools run with small sizes? Can we conceive of a school with 20 to 30 children? Or does this automatically signify a lack of quality?

Small schools existed all over India before the intervention of British colonial power and thoughts that generated from the Industrial Revolution. School can be looked at educationally, for financial viability and as social institutions.

Educational factors:

It is well-documented now that small classrooms afford a greater opportunity for students of different capacities to be meaningfully engaged in learning situations. The classroom after all requires the moderating influence of teacher. It has been variously suggested that numbers ranging from 20 to 30 are highly suitable for quality interaction between teacher and student.

It is also sufficiently documented that the small school, where everyone knows everyone else is a 'heathier' place than one with a large number of students. There are schools now with 30, 50, 100 children that seem anachronistic, schools with 200 t0 400 students that seem of widely acceptable size and then those with 500 to 5000 students & hundreds of teachers that are the recognized large schools. The small schools are considered to be elite and exclusive, though there are enough examples of small schools for poorer children.

Except for the very small schools, 20 to 50 students, the rest follow the pattern of same age classrooms, ie the school is graded from class 1 to 10 and students largely spend their school time in class groups. The assumption behind the same age classrooms is that all students learn the same thing at the same time or are exposed to the same thing at the same time and this is an efficient manner of transacting academics. All experience points to the limitation of this assumption. A group of human beings is a living social entity. The dynamic is anything but homogeneous. A school or classroom can ignore this fact only if it ignores the well-being of the students and teachers.

Financially:

Teaching is recognized as an aspirational vocation, something that people come to because of a passion or a deep conviction. In the present day context the teacher is an employee, employed by the system, or by a group of people to deliver academic content. The superseding of knowledge over aspiration is one of the important features of the educational system today. We hear everywhere that it is difficult to get good teachers. If we're able to attract enough good teachers the problems in schools would be settled. The inability of schools to draw such individuals from the environment is attributed to poor salaries. To redress the situation salary increases have been periodically brought in. However, these increases still do not move the teacher into the entrepreneurial category.

Let us look at two models of schools from the money angle. Today the salary of a teacher is assured by the employers. Like in the industrial model of a factory or enterprise, there is little relationship between the teachers and the person/people who employ them. this disconnect puts the teacher in the position of a hired hand. Therefore the market decides the price for the teachers' services. If this is truly the best situation then we should be able to accept it wholeheartedly. In India we have found is extremely difficult as also in other parts of the world. Despite the onset of the market economy we have found it extremely difficult to look upon teaching as merely a market commodity. This is reflected in how our country has not given up the hope of blending social aspirations with the educational mission of the nation. Is it possible at all for the teacher to have a different location?

Social and cultural:

Does the teacher of music, dance, chanting, yoga or martial arts have a different location? The answer is clear. Yes. These teachers are free to "ply their trade" independently or with institutions. So is a tuition teacher! Around the monolith of the schooling system there are the little schools that flourish. Seeing the economic opportunity here, tuition centers flourish. These are the alternate centers where education in subjects with the sole aim of attaining marks, "sold". Schools however, are expected to do more than merely barter academic exam learning for fees.

If we consider the early 19th century model, the learning institution was the place to which students went. It was either the house of the teacher or a common space given by the village. The teacher received sustenance from the village. The teacher was a valued member of the community supported a learning environment, was the anchor for such an environment. Kings and nobles would send their children to certain teachers, their reputation and capacity having traveled for through the learning displayed by their students. The teacher was much like an artisan, and entrepreneur.

From the accounts of the Gov. Gen. in India it seems that education was a flourishing activity. The account also suggests that every man woman and child knew how to read, write and do basic arithmetic. While the rule of East India Company brought the country under English rule, Sepoy Mutiny required the British Crown to intervene and take over the administration of India. Till then it seemed that thoughtful Governance was not required since the basic need was to subjugate the population of India economically. Cultural subjugation was far more difficult. Here was an intricate, yet extremely simple, action in education which was passing on inherited wisdom, knowledge to the next generation in an empowering manner. This system had nuances built in so that knowledge was not stripped of its cultural moorings. It was from this effective mechanism that the traditions, the knowledge and skills were being effectively communicated and this had been happening from generation to generation, over centuries.

Historical Change of Guard - Traditional to Modern Education

If one puts oneself in the shoes of the British in India, the mission of subjugating the population would be seen as hamstrung by the cultural and social resilience of the population. Power has always had the need to broadcast itself. The artifacts of economic power are large buildings needed to get large numbers of people together. The modern school, with its designed fragmentation, was a scale up from the existing schooling model. It was a part of the 'thoughtful Governance' that was now brought in - difficult to fault, therefore difficult to resist. In fact our own countrymen supported the setting up of such schools. The new schools smelt of fresh paint, had orderly arrangement of furniture and guaranteed belonging into the new order where rule of law and good sense superseded the rule of Kings.

The setting up of schools alone may not have changed the mold effectively enough. After all one of the features of this vast nation has been its capacity to accommodate new insights and practices. But when government power, particularly at the time of the great recession, was used to ensure that only students from recognized schools would be eligible for government jobs, the ascendance of the modern school was guaranteed. In times of economic crisis, all societies lean towards that which will make economic sense, economic survival. If the modern school, despite its strangeness and unsure assumptions, meant economic survival, so be it.

Ruminations:

One or two teachers, educating a group of 10 to 30 students, in a low infrastructure environment, is difficult to beat as a model of education. Only one teacher and his family need to draw sustenance from this work. The learning of the teacher and understanding was considered most valuable. The infrastructural features, beyond the basic, were insignificant. India is replete with stories of students who traveled far to spend years with revered teachers, to try and assimilate the knowledge which these teachers held. Therefore, the small school was an economic model that was extremely difficult to improve in terms of efficacy, delivery, economy and social content.

The modern school broke the backbone of the system by depriving it of economic validity. In one stroke, under British rule, all learning that had remained valid for centuries, became useless for generating income. Once the modern school found purchase, it automatically meant that the small schools faded away or continued in areas that were cultural and on he fringes of the economic mainstream - Dance and Music and Sanskrit. Soon they would merely be a memory, and in the light of current experience,an anachronism. To further establish the superiority of the modern schooling system an epithet was coined - rote learning. This suggested that much of the knowledge imparted in the small schools was merely mechanical in nature. It also meant that since reflection and digestion and assimilation was not part of the process.

In the 20th century:

Through the 20th century and into the 21st century, the old model has survived. It survived in places where the infrastructure demanded by the modern system was not available. It survived in village schools where there was one teacher, it survived in common schools where more teachers could not be appointed. It survived in rural and tribal communities where modern education was not available.

The small school reared its head again in the midst of the large, economy-of-scale schools, as little tuition classes held by individuals. In the 20th century the tuition centres were alternate venues for supplementing and building upon the effort of the main school. The economy of scale is always challenged by little shops around the malls, by the vendor on a cycle or cart or even on foot.

Schools of small fish around the behemoths in the ocean.

Some view this phenomenon as parasitical and therefore with suspicion. But, it is widely accepted that supplementary instruction in the house of a teacher is a way of enhancing the quality of academic transaction. The small group setting with a teacher offers something that the large schools dont.

The difficulties and problems encountered with modern education have been documented only too well. To mention just a few - cultural alienation, invalidation that students experience to failure, studying subjects that are in no way related to the daily experience of the student, the creation of a group whose approval and disapproval becomes shape the identity of children.

Economic analysis:

The modern schooling system requires 1.5 teachers for each class of students - that is the prevalent calculation. Additional requirements by way of specialist teachers for art, games, administrative head and accountant are needed. Therefore teachers are in the location of one who is supervised and monitored in much the same way that the student is. The teacher is an employee. The infrastructure does not belong to the teacher. The parents are not directly connected to the teacher.

The school is no different from another industrial enterprise that employs people and delivers services or goods. In this setting what is received by the student, are the 'goods', and what is delivered by the teacher are the 'services'. Since the teacher is an employed worker, unless school moves to a position where each teacher has a sense of belonging and ownership, and therefore a sense of responsibility, this tension cannot be defused. On the contrary, every attempt at defining the deliverables in school has only heightened the tension.

The small school model, operating from low infrastructure environment, requires that only the teacher needs to draw sustenance and therefore the cost is lower. The quality of the service offered is higher since the teacher is answerable to the student and needs to maintain his or her position in the society. Further, since in many such teachers exist, if a teacher is not found suitable students would leave. Lastly the teacher is directly accountable to the parent. He/she is in a position to define what he or she can offer -skill in bronze sculpture, growing up is a good human being, archery, astrology or astronomy. Therefore, in a sense, this system existed on the basis of the market economy, and did not ignore economic factors.

Social factors:

An artisan practicing a trade takes responsibility for the quality of his work. He or she takes pride in the work done and also feel responsible for what has been produced. The model of administration that grew in the colonial era was simply not good enough for nurturing a group of artists. The mode of administration that was required in the Army and in the church was not the mode of administration that would work with a team of people who were required to work together, bringing their individual talents and evolve a common basis for educating the young.

School by definition requires that teachers take responsibility. Responsibility also implies that people participate in the upkeep of the structure and its maintenance. They also feel responsible to make changes and suggests modifications when things don't work. Unfortunately looking at the structure of school, and how little it has changed over the years, one feels tempted to observe, that there is little scope for teachers to engage with the system. Therefore the school system has acquired a certain rigidity, and therefore become frozen and lifeless.

The greatest loss in the teacher crossing the threshold from master of the establishment to an employer was responsibility. The belief that responsibility would flow naturally from governance has been disproved time and time again in business analysis and schools of management. Definition of task does not define role. And the role of teacher has not found definition in a feet-on-the-ground manner to this day. A look at the teachers' manuals show the struggle in this articulation. Tasks are easy to define, but the spirit is another matter.

The cultural confusions did not help either. The venerated teacher, finding himself in a school became an object of ridicule, toothless and unsure. The ancient drivers drove him to be dignified and offer what he thought was needed. The system demanded that he teach subjects - himself a subject, to other subjects of the Raj. This conflict has not been resolved to this day. If the teacher teaches subjects, who teaches values? 'Bring in Moral instruction and a sanitized version of it called Value education.' But nevertheless the teacher is expected to 'bury' values in his / her instruction, engagement with the students.

Alternatives:

The rural education model developed by the Krishnamurti Center in Rishi Valley, demonstrated with telling effect the efficacy of the small village school. The possibility of such education as an effective alternative had been all but erased from the cultural memory of our country. The demonstration that several schools of this nature and structure could effectively guide children right up to the class X examination was an eye-opener to the educational community. It also spoke to the cultural consciousness of the land.

The right to education, shortly becoming law in India, chooses to address an unintended consequence of modern schooling - segregation based on economic and social opportunity. It is clear that it matters more who you go to school with rather than which school you go to. Thus some opportunities will open up for the underprivileged, particularly with the loosening of the pass fail categories proposed to be erased.

The modern school has replaced an old system. It has become a conduit for delivering justice. The afternoon lunch system ensures that all children in this country are able to get at least one solid meal. The free school system ensures that nobody has to pay for education. However, the movement of the teacher to the worker location also has made quality questionable and a price difficult to live with.

The small school offers immense possibility in our times. Today, with the availability of materials, knowledge, machines and adequate documentation, the small school is an economical possibility again. If the school, with a group of one to three teachers could educate a group of 25 to 40 students, in a mixed age environment, it is that they would be able to deliver a far higher quality of education than is available now in mainstream schools. Attention to the individual student would be possible. The context and the content would not be separated. With the possibility that class 10 standard examination will soon be abolished, the landscape offers many interesting possibilities. The ubiquitous computer with its vast reach into cyberspace for information, for stored knowledge, lends greater possibility to this model. It offers extraordinary flexibility of use, attention to the individual, and a size and scale that permits humane education, an accountable entrepreneur and a clear relationship between the stakeholders. Legislation however must support this direction if it is to grow. Alternatively this direction could grow despite lack of support from legislation.

For the future...

Usually a system contains within it the seeds of its own destruction, or disintegration. There are some points that everyone will agree are not working. There are absurdities built into each system. In tackling these one finds support from all quarters possible. However, the system survives, not because people don't see the problems, but because people don't converge upon a solution. Therefore, viable alternatives are in the hub of change.

The economy of scale model has built into it the need for large infrastructure. Where is the space needed for large schools in our cities? Can this model truly educate the whole population? The small school model requires low infrastructure. Large schools need administration. Small school needs self-regulation.

An old African saying "it takes a village to grow a child." No village has people of the same age grouped together in distinct spaces. A village is like most things in nature, a cluster of different things and similar things, somehow harmoniously bundled together.

Old Chinese saying, "specificity destroys harmony". In the search for predicable diction, grammar, numerical skills, all to be precisely calculated, we may be losing something far more important and wholesome.

It may be wise to move the configuration of schools towards the village model, away from the factory model, where membership is more significant than benchmark performance, where participation is more important than achievement. It may be valuable to replace the anxiety of performance with a sense of unconditional, dignified belonging. The thinking in the MHRD seems strangely similar to this, no exams in class 10, Certificate of having completed 10 years of schooling, a dignified threshold into later education or work life...

Can this not be equally achieved by the voucher model of education? Each student carries his voucher to a teacher nearby and is educated. The student and his family decide the scale of school they wish to draw their education from. Only one question remains - the examination. Anyway no student is to be failed. The exam can be approached privately as hundreds of thousands are doing today as in the past 100 years.

Aug 2009