Conceptions of School Curriculum in SouthAsia

A Study of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh

Gunjan Sharma

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2National Curriculum Frameworks: Broad Contours and Debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Perspectives on Educational Aims, School Knowledge, and Pedagogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Aims of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8The Conception of School Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Pedagogic Imagination and Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Abstract

The chapter presents a comparative picture of the broad curricular directions ofthe three neighboring countries in South Asia with a shared history – India,Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Based on a review of the primary documents andsecondary literature, the chapter broadly maps comparative trends in the mostrecent National Curriculum Frameworks of the three countries. It focuses on threeaspects of the frameworks that include the articulated aims of education, thedominant conceptions of school knowledge or curriculum, and the pedagogicimagination to realize these. Through such an engagement, the chapter presents acomparative account of the (at times inconsistent) discourses that are reflected inthese frameworks. These discourses are shaped by or respond to varied factorsincluding historical challenges and debates, national politics, neoliberal regimesof the global education policy, and academic perspectives. In doing so, thechapter also discusses the scope and trajectories of the comparative secondaryliterature on curriculum in the three countries.

G. Sharma (*)School of Education Studies, Ambedkar University Delhi, New Delhi, Indiae-mail: gunjan@aud.ac.in

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020P. M. Sarangapani, R. Pappu (eds.), Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia,Global Education Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_75-1

1

Keywords

National Curriculum Frameworks · Global Education Policy · Aims ofeducation · School knowledge · Pedagogic imagination

Introduction

India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh share a common educational past. The sharedcolonial legacies, especially in school education, are reflected not only in the system,structures, and institutions but also in educational discourses and politics in the threecountries. At the same time, the three contexts have over the years, particularly sincethe late 1980s, adopted and experienced the action of the global education policyframeworks reflected in the structural adjustment programs through externallyfunded educational projects (Alexander 2001; Mundy and Verger 2015). Theseinclude the World Bank and multilaterally funded projects that were initiated inthe three countries following the Jomtien Declaration (UNESCO 1990) and theDakar Framework for Action (UNESCO 2000). Over these years, the presence andinfluence of global actors especially donor agencies and international non-government organizations have become almost ubiquitous in the policy landscapesof the three countries as well as in the region as a whole (Verger et al. 2018;Westbrook et al. 2013). These reforms have been widely debated as being a part ofthe neoliberal imaginary and have interacted with the legacies of the past to furtheraugment the complexities of education in the three contexts (Kumar and Sarangapani2004; Obaidul and Rahman 2019; Raina 2020; Thachil 2009).

Yet, there are varied differences in the post-partition contexts, challenges, polit-ical regimes, and postcolonial developmental and aspirational trajectories that haveshaped the domain of school education in the countries. These (similarities and)differences have often reflected in the policy stances adopted and educationalindices. These stances and indices are much talked about in a comparative sense inboth popular as well as policy-research discourses (Asadullah 2009; Dundar et al.2014; Dahal and Nguyen 2014; People’s Action for Learning Network 2017). This isespecially because the three countries constitute a major part of South Asia that hasbeen described as the poorest region with “the highest human deprivation” (Haq andHaq 1997, pp. 2–3). The situation has changed in the past three decades with theabsolute number of persons below the poverty line in South Asia falling by 248.8million over 1990–2013. However, the share of the global poor in the region hasincreased from 27.3% to 33.4% – second only to sub-Saharan Africa (Deyshappriya2018). India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan (in the same order) have the highestpercentages of the population living below the global poverty line in South Asia.This makes socioeconomic inequality one of the biggest public policy challenges inthese countries that is addressed through varied policy approaches. In this regard,research studies have found that education is among the primary determinant ofinequality (Tilak 1999). As a result, education is seen as an important component ofthe anti-poverty programs in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (or rather South Asia

2 G. Sharma

in general) (Tilak 1999, p. 519). However, beyond the role of education as a catalystin economic development, a comparative discourse in the region on the broaderdemocratic purposes and practices of education seems to be limited. Comparativestudies that engage with the more nuanced praxis-based aspects of education (suchas curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments) are also relatively few. These studies aremuch needed to understand the connotations and interpretations of “quality” ineducation and make sense of the practices of education in the connected yetdifferentiated polities.

Located in this context, this chapter engages with the conception(s) of schoolcurriculum in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Taking the most recent NationalCurriculum Frameworks (NCFs) of the three countries as cases in point, the chapterpursues the following questions: what aims of education have been articulated inthese documents? How are the democratic aims located within this articulation?What is/are the dominant conception(s) or model(s) of curriculum or school knowl-edge underlying the curricular aims and visions presented in the NCFs? How havepedagogic processes and agency of learners and teachers been conceived in theNCFs? The engagement with these questions is primarily based on the publicallyavailable curriculum-related documents and secondary literature on the subject. Inthis process, the chapter also highlights the gaps in the comparative literature on thissubject. The chapter is organized in four sections including the introduction. Thesecond section discusses the broad contours of the national curriculum developmentand debates based on a survey of relevant literature and documents. The third sectionpresents a comparative analysis of the most recent NCFs of the three contexts alongthe lines of the questions outlined above. This is followed by a concluding note.

National Curriculum Frameworks: Broad Contours and Debates

In his work, The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum makessense?, Apple (1993) argues that the question of power and its centralization is acritical one to consider in understanding the politics of national curriculum. Hedevelops a case for how, while the proponents of national curriculum see it as aninstrument for social cohesion, the implications in practice are just the other wayround. This is especially the case when the curriculum is also accompanied by theregimes of national achievement testing. Both of these “national” level exercisesdemand setting up of “common standards” – an issue that is fundamentallyintertwined with the question of power and control over school knowledge. Heargues that the urge to develop these national systems emerges from the pressureto compete in the global knowledge economy. Elsewhere, Apple (2006) makes senseof how politics on national curriculum, especially in democracies, is mediated by notjust one ideology but by “a tense coalition of forces” that can “overcome its owninternal contradictions” (p. 49).

While the above analysis is generally applicable in the South Asian context, theseissues become further complicated in the case of the region when a long history ofstrong colonial administrative control over school knowledge is taken into account.

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 3

This history flows into the postcolonial present dominated by – perhaps philosoph-ically inconsistent – agenda of nation-building and democracy, conservative rightideological currents, and market-driven neoliberal policies, in a “third-world” con-text. These developments are accompanied by curriculum studies still taking shapeas a formal domain of knowledge in the region – making it somewhat morechallenging to examine the complex dynamics shaping curriculum policy andpractice. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, located in this context, have the practiceof developing national curricula or NCFs. NCF may be seen as a plan representing abroad agreement between different mediating political constituencies on the aims ofschool education (for specific or all school levels), the broad subject matter, and thepedagogic approach. It is expected to bring synchronization among the federatingunits of a nation in terms of how school experience is organized across mainstreamschools located in their jurisdictions. In this sense, it is also a policy text. The threecountries at different points in time have entrusted national autonomous bodies,committees, or councils with the task of developing and/or approving NCFs. In thesubsequent paragraphs, the broad contours of the development of these nationalcurriculum are discussed with a focus on the most recent frameworks.

In the case of India, the National Council of Educational Research and Training(NCERT) was set up in 1961 as an autonomous organization to advise the centraland state governments for quality improvements in school education. One of itsstated objectives was to develop and publish model textbooks and supplementarymaterial for school education. The state-level counterparts of NCERT, the StateCouncils of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), were expected to pursuesimilar objectives at the state level. Until 2019, NCERT has developed four NCFs (in1975, 1988, 2000, and 2005). Each has been aimed at guiding the development ofstate-level curriculum frameworks, syllabi, and textbooks across states and unionterritories in the country. The first among these was a response to the Report of theEducation Commission 1964–1966 that visualized education as a means for nationaldevelopment and called for a need to internally transform the basic education to meetthe aspirations of the nation. Subsequently, the second, National Education Policy(NEP) 1986, recommended review or development of NCF after a 5-year cycle. Thefact that the recommendation of the 5-year cycle renewal has been followed only inthe case of NCF 2005 (NCERT 2005) is also indicative of how the development ofnational curriculum in India is not a straightforward matter of following policymandates. All the NCFs claim to be based on the core values of the IndianConstitution that include a commitment to a socialist secular democratic polity.However, these values have not always reflected in the NCFs and/or in theirtranslation to textbooks (Sharma 2015). This has particularly been the case withNCF 2000 (developed under the right-wing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party-ledNational Democratic Alliance government) which has been critiqued for its “saf-fron” hues (or Hindutva orientation) and nationalist fervor (Dhankar 2012;Sriprakash 2012). The textbooks developed based on NCF 2000, especially thehistory and civics textbooks, were debated for communalizing school knowledge,further marginalizing the diverse cultural identities of learners, and for a conserva-tive right construction of the nation (Delhi Historians’Group 2001). With the change

4 G. Sharma

in the political regime (to the Indian National Congress-led United ProgressiveAlliance government), NCF 2005 emerged from the need for a re-orientation ofthis slant (Batra 2015). However, perhaps to steer clear from political controversy,the document did not claim to focus on this debate (Sadgopal 2005). Its statedintention, drawing upon the Learning without Burden report (Ministry of HumanResource Development (MHRD) 1993), was kept focused on making learning more“meaningful” and “joyful” for the child. The concern about lack of meaning and joyin learning has been contextualized in the long-standing culture of textbook andexamination-centric education (Kumar 1988) that is discussed in some detail in thesubsequent sections of this chapter. Engaging with these concerns, the report arguedfor a cultural shift toward a child-centered socially sensitive approach to education.NCF 2005 has been understood as differentiated from its predecessors on threeaspects: (a) understanding the child not as a means to achieving national goals but asan individual [an aspect that will be discussed in the subsequent section]; (b)demonstrated awareness of epistemological considerations in curriculum; and (c)the detail in which the exercise of the development of the framework was undertakenwhereby it was supported by 21 position papers focused on different aspects of thecurriculum (Dhankar 2012; Sharma 2015). Despite some critiques by progressivescholars (Batra 2005; Sadgopal 2005; Saxena 2006), the framework has beengenerally much appreciated by educationists and segments of policymakers. It hasalso been the basis of a series of policy-level reforms such as the National Curric-ulum Framework for Teacher Education (National Council for Teacher Education2009), the Children’s Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, and theJustice Verma Commission Report on Teacher Education (MHRD 2012). However,research has found that there has been a substantial loss of the spirit of NCF 2005while its translation to state-level CFs, syllabi, textbooks, and classroom practice(Nawani 2017; Sharma 2015). A more detailed account of these developments hasbeen presented by Durrani and Nawani (2020).

Like India, while Pakistan has also been developing centralized or commoncurricula for several decades, these documents have not been called NCFs.Pakistan’s first official NCF was announced during 2017–2019 (Ministry of FederalEducation and Professional Training (MFEPT) 2017/2019). It was approved by theNational Curriculum Council (NCC) – an advisory body under the MFEPT man-dated to “steer and guide the development of curriculum in close collaboration withall the Federating Units in order to ensure minimum quality standards from EarlyChildhood Education to Grade XII” (MFEPT 2017/2019, p. xi). Yet, there isevidence of considerable debate in Pakistan on the matter of having a uniformcurriculum vis-à-vis following a more provincial approach that takes into accountthe decentralized ethos of educational governance (Ali 2013). This is particularlybecause of the autonomy of the provincial governments over curricular matters afterthe 18th constitutional amendment that made curriculum development the soleresponsibility of the provinces and areas. Before the amendment, education was amatter of the Concurrent Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan. This listwas abolished in 2010 by passing the amendment in the parliament to re-orient thecentralization of power over various matters, including education, as seen in the case

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 5

of some of the former regimes. However, as said earlier, there is also a long history ofattempts of arriving at a uniform curriculum by national bodies of Pakistan (NationalBureau of Curricula and Syllabi and a National Textbook Board) that were set upmuch earlier in the 1960s for this task. The school textbooks and syllabi in Pakistanhave been reviewed and revised by the Federal Ministry of Education at variousjunctures, for instance, following the partition with Bangladesh (Durrani 2013). Thishas been discussed in more detail by Durrani and Nawani (2020). Also, from theearly 2000s, several national reform initiatives were introduced in Pakistan. As aresult of these initiatives, the national curriculum for all science and humanitiesgroup school subjects was developed in 2006. It mainly comprised of syllabi of 25school subjects developed by the curriculum review and development groups con-stituted by the Federal Ministry of Education. However, these could not beimplemented in letter and spirit due to the complexities involved in textbookpublishing that were not pre-empted (Jamil 2009). This curriculum is in practice inthe various provinces and areas with modifications (Durrani and Nawani 2020). Inthis context, Pakistan’s first official NCF approved by the NCC comes across as anattempt to achieve a “national” vision and goals “for national cohesion and interests”(MFEPT 2017/2019, p. xi). The main stated agenda underlying this move was todevelop “common standards to assess learning achievements of students” after thedevolution of power on curricular decisions to the provinces (MFEPT 2017/2019, p.vii). This political negotiation over curriculum between provincial and centralgovernments is seen in the case of India and Bangladesh in different forms but iscomparatively much sharper in the case of Pakistan. However, like in the case ofboth India and Bangladesh, curriculum changes in Pakistan can be mapped along thechanges in the political regimes (Durrani 2013). Along with these changes, similar tothe debates on communalization of education in India, ardent debates aroundIslamization of curriculum and textbooks of Pakistan (particularly history textbooks)have been identified and tracked in the literature (Muhammad and Brett 2016;Nayyar and Salim 2003).

Bangladesh has experienced at least three systemic shifts in its larger politicalhistory. These include the two partitions in 1947 and 1971 and the 12th Constitu-tional Amendment in 1991 that brought an end to the presidential rule in the country.These junctures have also brought about changes in the educational goals, systems,and structures as well as in the national curricula in Bangladesh. In the 1960s, beforepartition from Pakistan, the then Education Ministry had developed a curriculum forsecondary and higher secondary education (VI to XII) that was reviewed and revisedlater. In 1983 the National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB) was formed bythe government by consolidating the National Curriculum Development Centre andthe Bangladesh School Textbook Board for maintaining relevance and unity betweencurriculum and textbooks (NCTB 2017). NCTB now functions as an autonomousbody and “develops and revises national curriculum for all school levels up to gradeXII and is responsible for the refining, printing and free of cost distribution oftextbooks” (Qazi and Shah 2019). A curriculum for secondary education was alsodeveloped in 1995 by NCTB. In 2010, NCTB was directed by the Ministry ofEducation to review and revise the curriculum of 1995 in the light of the new

6 G. Sharma

NEP. This resulted in the National Curriculum for Secondary Education (English)(VI–X) in 2012 (NCTB 2012). The Asian Development Bank-funded SecondaryEducation Sector Development Project (SESDP) was one of the major influences onthis curriculum (NCTB 2012; Hossain 2015). Such an influence is seen not only inthe case of Bangladesh but is common in Pakistan and India as well – a phenomenonthat will be discussed in subsequent sections of the chapter. Connected with this, oneof the major active debates on the curriculum of 2012 in Bangladesh concerns theteaching of English as a language and legitimization of English as a medium ofinstruction at the cost of Bengali medium education. This goes along the debate onthe social class-based streaming of students between English and vernacular mediumschools that is a major point of discussion in Bangladesh. However, Bangladesh’sNCF 2012 (English) has given a clear emphasis on the need for teaching-learningEnglish through the Communicative Language Teaching approach that has beencritiqued in the literature (Kabir 2015). The CF is seen in this literature as giving wayto “well-resourced schools to introduce English version of the national curriculum”which means “that qualified schools can operate entirely in English. . .” and do awaywith the Bengali medium altogether (Hamid and Rahman 2019, p. 387). The debateson the medium of instruction are also intense in India’s and Pakistan’s policy andcurricular contexts. However, these are much more pronounced in Bangladesh giventhat language identity was one of the primary fulcrum of the partition of erstwhilewest and east Pakistan (Ghosh 2014; Qazi and Shah 2019). Also, the skew inBangladesh with a larger percentage of children in Bengali medium schools, and amuch smaller percentage (as compared with the other two countries) accessingEnglish medium mostly private education, makes the language debate take a differ-ent character. The increasing policy shift toward the English medium is also seen ashaving a neoliberal influence that is pushing the school knowledge or curriculumtoward a “global language” while diminishing the significance of linguistic nation-alism (Hamid and Rahman 2019, p. 393).

In general, from a review of curricular documents and relevant literature, it can besaid that the question of developing a national identity for achieving “cohesion” is acentral axis in the curriculum policy landscape in the three countries. It is reflected indifferent forms in the three contexts and is embedded as a sub-text in the most recentNCFs as well. Notably, the question of education and national identity is also a muchmore empirically studied concern in each country as well as in the relevant compar-ative literature. Social science and especially history textbooks are the subject ofanalysis for such literature. These works engage with how parallel narrative con-structions around shared moments and phenomenon (such as freedom struggle,partition, wars, religion, and citizenship) are embedded in the social science orhistory textbooks (Crook 1996; Durrani and Dunne 2010; Joshi 2010; Kumar2001; Rosser 2003). The implicit agenda is to frame a national identity by presentinga political “other” or “enemy” (Saigol 2005). This literature has been discussed inmuch detail by Durrani et al. (2020) and Durrani and Nawani (2020). Such studiesprovide nuanced insights into how national curriculum and textbooks are not neutraland how these continue to be relational in terms of holding on to shared history toshape the divergent present and future.

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 7

Perspectives on Educational Aims, School Knowledge, andPedagogies

National curriculum documents are often seen as expressions of “common” agree-ments on the questions of educational aims, what to teach, and how to teach andassess. These documents are mostly read as implementation mandates or designs bythe educational practitioners (including administrators, those who work in syllabusand textbook agencies and examination boards, and teachers). However, as indicatedin the preceding section, these documents may also be read as policy discourses orpolitical texts (Apple 1993; Pinar et al. 2007). This section attempts to bring togetherthe understanding from curriculum documents and secondary literature focused onreading the three NCFs as policy discourses. This approach has been followed forsketching a broad comparative picture of contemporary policy-politics and thinkingin the domain in the three countries, rather than engaging in a comparison of thecontents that are included in the documents. In this process, this section identifiespatterns in the most recent of NCFs of these countries (India’s NCF 2005 (INCF),Pakistan’s NCF 2017/2019 (PNCF), and Bangladesh’s NCF 2012 (BNCF)) on threeaspects: the articulated aims of education, the dominant conceptions of schoolknowledge, and the pedagogic imagination to realize these that also have a bearingon learners’ and teachers’ autonomy and agency.

The Aims of Education

In the Indian context, it is argued that most of the official education-related docu-ments (especially national education policies and commission reports and curricu-lum-related documents) have not clearly articulated the aims of education. Dhankar(2020) remarks:

There are very few official documents in India in which the aims of education are given aserious and rigorous treatment. . .documents often gloss over and confuse aims with nationalgoals, on one side, and curricular objects, on the other. . .Not articulating the aims ofeducation clearly can be used by the powers that be to have an education system of theirown choice even without explicit social agreement on this. (pp. 92–93)

It is also argued that the main agenda of most of the education policy andcurriculum-related documents in India has been to prepare a productive workforcefor competing in the global economy – to attain the economic goals for the nation.This trend, although generally present across different national policy-level docu-ments, becomes more explicit with what is referred to in the literature as the“neoliberal” turn of the 1990s (Raina 2020; Sadgopal 2006). However, INCF maybe seen as a departure from this general trend. This can be gauged from the fact thatamong the 21 position papers that support the INCF, one is exclusively focused onthe aims of education. INCF frames these educational aims as (a) independence ofthought and action, (b) sensitivity to others’ well-being and feelings, (c) learning to

8 G. Sharma

respond to new situations in a flexible and creative manner, (d) predisposition towardparticipation in democratic processes, and (e) the ability to work toward andcontribute to economic processes and social change (NCERT 2005, p. viii). It isevident and also agreed upon in the literature that these aims inhere a spirit ofdemocracy and reflect the identification of the need to address the wide inequity inthe social fabric of India (Dhankar 2012; Sharma 2015; Sriprakash 2012). Thedevelopment of a critical autonomous individual is seen as being central to thesedemocratic aims. In other words, as compared with its predecessors, INCF entails ashift in the aims of education toward understanding the individual as a person andnot merely as a means to achieve national or economic goals while thinking ofnational goals as akin to individual goals and vice versa. An analysis of theframework by Dhankar (2012) notes that INCF “explicitly mentions that the indi-vidual is primarily worthwhile in herself, visualises her as an autonomous citizen,with rights and capabilities to contribute to nation-building according to her ownimagination” (p. 5). At the same time, INCF is not the exclusive document in thecurriculum history of India that reflects these aims (Dhankar 2012). There has beensporadic and fragile echoing of the primary aim of education being to strengthensecular pluralistic democracy and individual autonomy (for instance in MHRD1993). However, in the form of an official curriculum framework, INCF is the firstclear articulation of these purposes of education. This understanding of the aims ofeducation consistently cuts across the entire framework.

However, whether these above emphases in the aims represent a sustainable shiftin the curriculum policy thinking in India, or INCF is only an aberration in thelandscape of national curricular discourse, is debatable. There is sufficient evidencein the literature that post-2014 the major education policy-related reforms anddocuments in India, especially the Draft NEP 2019 (MHRD 2019) [a precursor ofthe third NEP of India that has been made public by the MHRD for comments andfeedback], do not reflect allegiance to this discourse (Rampal 2019; Roy 2019). Theomission of such discourse appears to be somewhat systematic. The linguisticchoices, especially in the case of the Draft NEP 2019 and related documents,oscillate backward to emphasize human capital aims of education and short-shriftthe individual and democratic aims. The Draft NEP is also seen as being “animatedby a vision to create an ‘India-centred’ education system that will lead to the creationof an ‘equitable and vibrant knowledge society’” (Roy 2019, p. 2). In that, the Draftstrives to find a balance between the “Indian” and the “global.” This ideology alsounderlies the recommendations on school curriculum in the Draft. It can be inferredthat the reflection of such a vision of INCF is restricted to the flurry of reforminitiatives during 2004–2014 when the United Progressive Alliance was in thegovernment. Analyzing the developments during this period, Setty (2014) states:

India is awash in educational reforms and policies. Over the last 10 years, policymakers havewritten and distributed new school textbooks for every grade and discipline (2003–2007),adopted a new National Curriculum Framework (NCF) for school children (2005) andpassed the Education for All Act (2010), to name a few recent initiatives.

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 9

Such “awash” makes reform initiatives much susceptible to political action withchanges in political dispensations – especially in the case of national curriculum onwhich the control of the state agencies is almost absolute. Yet, this emphasis ondemocracy as the primary goal of education is a distinguishing feature of the INCFnot only vis-à-vis previous Indian curriculum frameworks but also in comparisonwith PNCF and BNCF.

Given that PNCF has been approved only recently, scholarly studies on thedocument are relatively few. While the studies on previous curriculum documentsof Pakistan are much helpful in making sense of patterns and issues in PNCF, theprimary document has to be reviewed and drawn upon to make sense of the aims ofeducation. From such review, it emerges that much in contrast with INCF, PNCFdirectly invokes human capital perspective in its articulation of educational aims. Itstates, “Education is a critical investment for human capital formation and anessential tool for ensuring sustainable socio-economic development” (p. 1). It furtherdefines educational goals as “bringing desirable changes in the attitudes and behav-iours of human beings. . .learning or acquisition of knowledge, values, beliefs,habits, skills and dispositions.” However, there are references to the individual-focused aims as well. PNCF states, “Education is the knowledge of putting one’spotentials to the maximum use enabling a person to think and take informed choicesand decisions” (p. 1). Yet, in terms of prioritization, the economic and nation-building goals take primacy over imagining individual as an autonomous and criticalactor central to the process of education. The pressures of the global economy andeducation policy are also embedded in such prioritization that is common in SouthAsia and the developing world in general (Mundy and Verger 2015; Westbrook et al.2013). PNCF directly points to this reality by signposting its commitment to theglobal frameworks of education that are understood in critical literature in Pakistanas being “neoliberal” in their orientation (Ali 2016). In the section “Goals ofEducation,” PNCF states:

Pakistan had made a commitment to achieve six Dakar EFA Goals within the specified targetdates. Pakistan is also a signatory to Sustainable Development Goals 2015–2030 wherebyeach member state has to ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelonglearning. (p. 1)

As stated in PNCF, the fundamental principles of the framework have beenderived from Pakistan’s NEPs especially the NEP 2009. This Policy is seen asbeing radically different in its structure and approach and was based on a WhitePaper (National Education Policy Review Team 2007) that thoroughly reviewed thecontexts and challenges of education in Pakistan (Ali 2013). However, certaintensions are implicit in the Policy – for instance, that of striking a balance betweennational and global concerns and mandates. In this regard, while analyzing the WhitePaper on which the NEP is based, Ali (2016) argues:

Note the subtlety with which the madrassas are equated with missionary schools and are alsoconsidered non-state (i.e., private) contribution, which is something encouraged by the neo-

10 G. Sharma

liberal globalisation. This parallel usage alludes to a tension between global and nationaldiscourses of education. Globally the government of Pakistan faces criticism on its toleranceof madrassa education imparting extremist education. Nationally the government faces thecriticism by religious scholars over its effort to reform madrassa education. So sensitive isthe issue of Islamic ideology that the subsequent policy that has emerged after the WhitePaper completely silenced any such discussion that was there in the White Paper’s initialpages. Interestingly the final policy (Pakistan. Ministry of Education 2009) approved by thecabinet (a new government post Musharraf) has introduced a whole chapter on IslamicEducation, perhaps to attempt to appease some religious political voices. Here we can see theeffects of neo-liberal globalisation policies and preferences that like countries to remainfocused on concerns at a technical level rather than questioning the basis and aims ofdominant education agendas. (p. 12)

This attempt to balance the tension between the national and global goals is alsotransferred from the NEP 2009 (and previous policies) to PNCF. On the one hand,the framework spells out with relative clarity the role of education in the promotionof Islamic ideology. On the other hand, as stated earlier, the “discourse resources”(Ali 2016) are simultaneously drawn from the goals of “globalized education” aspromoted by Dakar and other frameworks. Pakistan’s curricular documents andmaterial, in previous instances as well, have retained this tension especially post-1977 coup (Durrani and Dunne 2010; Nayyar and Salim 2003).

BNCF has defined educational aims in a way that is much similar to PNCF. Thecurriculum states the main aim of secondary education as being to create “knowl-edgeable, skilled, rational, creative and patriotic human resources full of human,social and moral qualities through holistic development of the learners” (p. 11.).Thus, at least apparently, BNCF visualizes education as an instrument for economicdevelopment. While a concern for the holistic development of learners has also beenincluded in the expression, the implicit rationale of such focus also slants towardpreparing individuals to participate efficiently in the economic processes. Thehuman, social, and moral aspects of the development are primarily perceived asattributes of a productive national resource. The broad objectives of education statedin BNCF further clarify this by defining the “qualities” of this resource. Thedocument states:

. . .to help learners acquire the basic skills of English language for effective communicationsat different spheres including contemporary work places, and higher education. . .to makelearners acquainted with arithmetical logics, methods and skills; and increase their abilitiesto apply them for problem solving concerning day to day and global affairs. . .to increaselearners’ interest about technology and make them confident, productive and creative in theuse of Information and Communication Technology. (p. 11)

One aspect that stands out in BNCF, which also draws a contrast particularly withINCF, is the focus on the moralistic aims and objectives of education. There areseveral recurring references to the moral development of learners, but the connota-tions range from religious, to nationalist-constitutional, to sociocultural. Some of theobjectives of education that reflect these orientations include:

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 11

. . .to firmly induce in learners human qualities such as, moral values, honesty, perseverance,tolerance, discipline, self confidence, good manners, respect for others, aesthetic perception,civic relationship and sense of justice. 3. to help learners grow up as potential citizensinducing in them patriotism, nationalism and democratic values in the light of greatLanguage Movement, spirit of Liberation War and secularism. . . 5. to enhance learners’positive attitude towards dignity of labour, and to improve their habit and interest of work sothat they can accomplish individual or group work with moral sense and responsibility. . ..(pp. 11–12)

While some of these moral underpinnings are also implicit in the aims ofeducation identified in INCF and PNCF, the linguistic articulations are differentand thereby construct much different meanings. The stated focus on religious-moraleducation in BNCF is also reflected in the school-subject contents suggested therein.It outlines the “Compulsory subjects of general education stream” for classes six toeight as “Religion and moral education: Islam and Moral Education/Hindu Religionand Moral Education/Christian Religion and Moral Education/Buddhist Religionand Moral Education” (p. 13). This discourse is also seen in Bangladesh’s otherofficial curriculum documents. Tracing this discursive trajectory in the NationalCurriculum 1995, Alam (2012) states:

The Government wants to equip citizens to be nationally and internationally competitivefrom the neoliberal perspective. Yet at the same time, there is a conscious effort to giveimportance to maintaining our own religious, moral, cultural and social values. So there is atension in the government’s goals between these different ways of understanding what itmeans to be a citizen. . . These two ideas of citizenship might at first appear to be mutuallyexclusive and at the least do not sit together comfortably. . .. (p. 19)

The survey of education policy and curriculum literature, thus, indicates that thetension between nationalistic and globalized aims of education is shared in the threecountries. These tensions are shaped historically by the question of identity incolonial India that, as said earlier, is a critical consideration in curricular thinkingin the three countries (Durrani 2013; Kumar 2001; Qazi and Shah 2019). At the sametime, these tensions also point to the complexities involved in national curriculumframing in these countries that necessitate factoring in the colonial legacies, thecontemporary challenges, and future aspirations in a “third-world” context.

The Conception of School Knowledge

Historically, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have a shared tradition of textbook andexamination-centric education system that has its historical roots in the colonialorigins of schooling. The colonial education system relied on a strong bureaucraticcontrol over school knowledge or “appropriate knowledge” through the technologiesof textbooks and examination –where teachers and students had little autonomy overcurriculum (Kumar 2005). Teachers and students were perceived in this tradition aspassive recipients of knowledge, making rote-learning the default pedagogic ethos.Analyzing the political agenda underlying the institution of this culture, Kumar

12 G. Sharma

(1988) argues, “Colonial education meant that its beneficiaries would begin toperceive themselves and their society as consumers of the knowledge supplied bythe colonizer and would cease to see themselves as people capable of producing newknowledge” (p. 454). This culture has continued in school education in the threecountries (Al Amin and Greenwood 2018; Jain and Nawani 2011; Rosser 2003).However, there have been several other developments in the postcolonial presentthat have further shaped policy thinking around curriculum or school knowledge. Inthis backdrop, understanding how the contemporary NCFs of the three countriesconceptualize school knowledge becomes critical.

In understanding the conceptions of knowledge implicit in the three documents, itis useful to draw upon Kelly’s (2009) and Grundy’s (1987) classification of modelsof curriculum. They identify the following four models: (a) curriculum as content tobe transmitted or the body of knowledge expressed in the form of syllabus with a listof topics to be taught; (b) curriculum as product or specific standards, targets, andoutcomes to be achieved; (c) curriculum as a process where continuous interactionbetween teachers and students creates a context of knowledge construction; and (d)curriculum as praxis or an emancipatory process. These four models are also seen asconceptions of or assumptions about school knowledge. When applied to the threecurriculum documents, it becomes possible to see how different models have shapedthem. On a closer reading, more than one model can be (arguably though) observedin the same document in all the three cases.

In the case of INCF, the document itself formally lays down the process-focusedknowledge framework that it draws upon. As said earlier, INCF is based on theYashpal Committee’s Learning without Burden report (MHRD 1993) that engagedwith the issue of the agency of the child in the process of education and linked it withthe quality concerns in Indian education. For enhancing quality and equity ineducation, drawing from this Report, INCF argues for a need to differentiate betweeninformation and knowledge, move beyond seeing textbooks and examinations as thefulcra of education while linking school knowledge to child’s experience (Jain andNawani 2011). In this context, INCF has identified its main focus as bringing aparadigm shift toward a democratic child-centered education drawing from a con-structivist perspective. It states:

The fact that knowledge is constructed by the child implies that curricula, syllabi, andtextbooks should enable the teacher in organising classroom experiences in consonancewith the child’s nature and environment, and thus providing opportunities for all children-. . .Knowledge needs to be distinguished from information, and teaching needs to be seen asa professional activity, not as coaching for memorisation or as transmission of facts. (p. xi)

INCF is not the first Indian national policy-level document to bring in thediscourse of process-focused child-centered education in education policy andpractice space in India. The idea of child-centered education – conceived largelyin terms of its elements of joyful activity-based learning – has been prevalent in thepolicy discourse at least from NPE 1986. This will be discussed in greater detail inthe next section; here it is relevant to state that in the case of INCF, the

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 13

conceptualization of school knowledge that informs the pedagogic frame of joyfullearning is much more rigorous and consistent. Conceptual analyses of INCF alsoreaffirm this orientation of the document (Batra 2015; Dhankar 2012; Sharma 2015;Sriprakash 2012). Batra (2015) states that INCF “views curriculum as a ‘deliberativeact’ that subsumes classroom discourse and processes. Never before in India has anational curriculum document engaged deeply with questions of learning, knowl-edge, the sociocultural context of learners, and a pedagogic approach” (p. 51).However, there are other kinds of philosophical inconsistencies in the view ofknowledge that the document brings together. As Dhankar (2012) states that whileINCF reflects an “awareness of need for epistemological considerations.. . ., no clearpicture of accepted epistemology emerges. There are half articulated views onknowledge and they seem to be in tension with each other, though, logicallyspeaking, these tensions can perhaps be resolved” (p. 10). Alongside a process-based orientation, the INCF also inheres a critical perspective on school knowledgethat resonates with the praxis model of curriculum. In keeping with the deep-seatedissues of equity in the Indian context that also reflect in the selection and organiza-tion of school knowledge, the document has suggested representing multiple per-spectives on reality while bringing in the frames of the marginalized in a criticalpedagogic context (Sharma 2015).

A broad review of PNCF and BNCF indicates that both the documents largelytake a product or outcome orientation to school knowledge. The general emphasis onstandard learning outcomes cuts across the vision as well as other sections of thedocuments. BNCF explicates the model of curriculum it aligns with as it states:

National Curriculum 2012 has been developed based on the objective-learning outcomemodel. According to this model, aims and general objectives of education are determinedfirst. Then subjects and subject-wise learning objectives. . .are selected. To achieve subject-wise objectives, terminal learning outcomes for different grades are determined. Terminallearning outcomes are classified into class-wise learning outcomes. Class-wise learningoutcomes are further divided under three heads: cognitive, affective and psychomotordomains. Then contents suitable for a class, teaching-learning activities, assessment tech-niques and other strategies are laid. . .This model is also called product oriented model.Many countries in the present world follow this model to develop their curriculum. (p. 1)

PNCF, in an uncannily similar way, codifies the key features of curriculumobjectives of subjects as follows:

• Specify the expected performance (by the students after delivery of curriculum)and nature of evidence needed as an indicator for satisfactory performance oraccomplishment.

• Cover various learning domains as per various taxonomies of educational objec-tives e.g. Cognitive, psycho-motor and affective etc.

• Simple, realistic and specific.• Clear and precise enough to plan learning experiences for the students and assess

extent of achievement of objectives by them.• Reflect needs of students, teachers, as well as the society.

14 G. Sharma

• Indicate benefits both to the learners and the society.• Use action verbs e.g. count, multiply, write, draw, explain, describe, and distin-

guish. (p. 23)

In PNCF, there are overt references to the need for stating the outcomes in abehavioristic frame: “Objectives/learning outcomes should preferably be stated inbehavioural terms i.e. what changes should take place in the knowledge, skills, andattitudes of students” (p. 23). Articulations such as these make it evident that in thecase of both BNCF and PNCF, means-ends model of curriculum planning (Tyler1949) is implicit – with or without having been actively chosen.

Broadly speaking, this means-ends model underlying the product orientation tocurriculum exclusively focuses on performative efficiency and views school knowl-edge as an ensemble of rules of production (Singh 2015). These models of knowl-edge have been deployed by externally funded education projects through policyadvocacy in the three contexts. Thus, the preponderance of the outcomes approach inPNCF and BNCF can be linked to the impact of the multilaterally funded projects.These projects, as discussed earlier, have been guided with the fundamental oftapping the human resource potential of the South Asian region for the globalknowledge economy. In the context of Pakistan, while discussing this origin ofoutcomes approach in the developed world and later implementation in developingcountries, Halai (2013) argues:

. . .outcomes-based curricula have been introduced in low-income countries because it isbelieved that they will prepare students for the challenge of living in an increasinglyglobalised world. Traditional transmission pedagogies are deemed inadequate for enablingstudents to be lifelong learners with transferable skills, who can take charge of their learningand adapt to the rapidly changing economic opportunities created by globalization. (p. 177)

Making a similar argument in relation to the earlier CFs of Bangladesh, Alam(2012, p. 19) notes, “. . .there was a very mechanistic aspiration in learning commu-nicative English skills in order to get a job rather than taking it as a medium whichhelps students to become capable of negotiating their place in the world.”

Knowledge as outcome is not the only model embedded in PNCF and BNCF. Thecontent model can also be identified as being critical in shaping the documents. Thismodel can be identified by tracking the use of the term “curriculum” in the twodocuments. In both the PNCF and BNCF (as well as the literature on curriculum inthe two countries), there is an ambiguous use of the terms curriculum and syllabus.In many instances, the terms have been used interchangeably. That is, curriculum (atleast apparently) is understood as syllabus that is expected to aid the development ofor be “covered” through textbooks and establish the minimum standards for class-room instruction. For instance, PNCF states, “A National Curriculum Frameworkexplains broader aims and goals for the education including curricula” (p. 22). Whilethe PNCF does not include a list of content areas to be taught, the rationale for this isnot an intrinsic one but the restriction imposed by the 18th amendment in the

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 15

constitution (that makes curriculum and textbooks a subject of the provinces andareas). To this effect, PNCF states:

After the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, tasks of curriculum and textbooks develop-ment and related subjects like medium of instruction have been assigned to the provinces.Now provinces will have to make decisions in this respect, keeping in view their localcontext and needs. Nonetheless, a common framework on medium of instruction, to bemutually agreed upon by all stakeholders will be beneficial for the country. (p. 67)

The fact that BNCF is not titled as a “national curriculum framework” but as“national curriculum” reflects the ambiguity in the concept of national curriculum.However, the idea becomes clearer in the section where curriculum is defined inBNCF:

A curriculum contains answers to questions such as to who, why, what, how, with whosehelp, by what, where and for how long learners will learn. It also shows the ways of assessingtheir learning as well. A curriculum also addresses the aims and objectives of education,attainable learning outcomes, subjects and their contents, guidelines for teaching-learningactivities and the like. (p. iv)

In BNCF, descriptions of content areas and outcomes are included and comprise amajor part of the document. It is relevant to note that the conceptual part of BNCF ismuch shorter in comparison with PNCF and INCF. BNCF also has several tabularpresentations of the performance expectations from different stakeholders of educa-tion. Such framing of the document is also indicative of the underlying perspectiveof knowledge. This orientation permeates several contemporary curriculum andeducation policy documents in Bangladesh and is critiqued as being narrowlyimagined in the relevant literature (Hamid and Rahman 2019).

In general, it can be said that the three NCFs reflect more than one perspective onschool knowledge. Assembling these sometimes conflicting perspectives often gen-erates internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the text. In the case of PNCF andBNCF, it comes across that knowledge is mostly defined in terms of outcomes andthe role of curriculum is largely (though not exclusively) considered as the creationof “the knowledge worker” for global economy (Patrick 2013, p. 2). The case ofINCF is different as the document emerged from a long-drawn scholarship andcritique of these pressures. However, this influence can be seen in other curriculumdocuments of India (such as NCERT (1991) and MHRD (2019)).

Pedagogic Imagination and Agency

In terms of the perspectives that inform pedagogic ideas in the three documents,there is an apparent similarity. All three CFs draw from the discourse on child-centered and activity-based teaching-learning. The reason for this is not necessarily ashift toward progressive education in the three countries. The more convincingreason, as stated earlier, appears to be the influence of the “reform” initiatives of

16 G. Sharma

the externally funded education projects that have structured child-centeredapproach as a package of “strategies” devoid of their philosophical origins (Kumarand Sarangapani 2004; Westbrook et al. 2013). Engaging with this reality in thedeveloping world, Sriprakash (2012) notes:

Child-centred education has no manifesto by which to codify its aims. It is represented by anumber of overlapping approaches that privilege different philosophical sources. . .In devel-opment contexts too, child-centred initiatives take different forms. They often emphasisedemocratic learning environments, loosened authority relations over the child, more flexibleboundaries around what constitutes school knowledge, and constructivist theories of learn-ing. The broadly democratic rhetoric of such pedagogies lends itself to the dominant neo-liberal paradigm which has tied social and political democratisation to economic advance-ment. (p. 1-2)

Analyzing the pedagogical discourse as deployed by the externally fundedDistrict Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in India, Sriprakash (2012) furtherstates:

Although the DPEP documentation related ‘joyful, activity-based, child centred classroomprocesses to ‘quality improvement’. . .the underlying assumptions and contextual consider-ations about learners, communities, teachers, and the aims of education in this assortment ofapproaches were in effect underdeveloped. . .the precedence of managerial rationales inclassroom organisation has been indicative of the absence of a theoretically grounded notionof pedagogy in DPEP literature; ‘pedagogical considerations are only grafted onto it’. (p. 42)

Although written in the context of India, the above analysis also applies generallyto the child-centered activity-based learning discourse invoked by the developmentprojects in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. This becomes evident at one level whenPNCF and BNCF both in one way or the other recommend child-centered andactivity-based teaching-learning approach alongside behavioristic outcome-focusedgoals and approaches. For instance, PNCF states:

There is extensive and well-documented evidence that teaching approaches have an impacton students’ learning. This evidence tells us that students learn best when teachers create asupportive learning environment where students feel appreciated and accepted as well asenjoy positive relationships with their peers and teachers. Effective teachers promotepositive learning environments that are considerate, inclusive, unbiased, and unified. (p. 42)

Following this PNCF, in the section on teacher education, enlists the teaching“methodologies” to facilitate such learning. The methodologies of teaching, amongother approaches (discussion, cooperative learning, and inquiry method), include“interactive lecture” (p. 42). Here, the framing of pedagogy in terms of methodol-ogies is devoid of any organic link with the subject matter to be transacted. Theconcern appears largely to be “effective delivery” of content and/or realization ofoutcomes much more than democratization of learning. Interestingly, PNCF men-tions the need for ensuring conceptual understanding only in the case of preparingteachers for the teaching of Mathematics.

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 17

Among the three frameworks, PNCF demonstrates a much less emphasis on thechild-centered discourse. Thus, the understanding of the child as an active partici-pant of the educational process is also missing in its overall approach despite somereferences (such as on p. 69). Similarly, the ideas of teacher agency and autonomy donot find a space in the document. Rather, PNCF lays down ten teacher standards thatare aligned with the learning outcomes to be achieved by them. On the one hand, thispoints to how the global neoliberal discourses on teacher accountability and perfor-mance have reflected in the document as is often seen in the case with otherdevelopment contexts (Verger and Parcerisa 2017). On the other hand, this lack ofreference to child-centered education is also a likely outcome of it becoming adefault template or a “given” due to the fairly long experience of externally aidedreform programs.

In BNCF, there is an inconsistent expression of the imagined pedagogic approachthat in some instances appears conceptually awkward. This is particularly evident insection nine that states the learning theories that the BNCF claims to draw upon. Inthe first paragraph of the section, Thorndike, Gestalt theorists, and Piaget have beenmentioned together without a reference to how their ideas represent different andcontrasting epistemologies (p. 19). This is followed by a description of “construc-tivist theory” that is identified as “the latest theory on how learners learn” (p. 19). Inother sections, some concepts and vocabulary drawn from child-centered construc-tivist perspective are arranged together in a behavioristic rationale. For instance, inthe section, Teaching-learning strategies, and techniques, BNCF states:

8.1.1. . . . Learning can take place easily and in less time if learners actively participate in thelearning process

8.1.2. Human beings cannot concentrate on single work for a long time. Children’sduration of concentration is less than that of adults. It has been found in many studies that theduration of concentration for children between the ages of 12 to 16 is 8 to 10 minutes. Andthat also depends on how much the work is attractive and pleasurable. So class activitiesshould be varied. Learners’ attention can be drawn through discussions, group works, storywriting. . .

8.1.7. Practice makes learning long lasting. When practiced repeatedly, learning is notonly permanent but also transformed from theory to application. (pp. 17–18)

Further, in section ten of BNCF. “Some methods and techniques of teaching-learning activities” (p. 20) where “methodologies” for teachers are enlisted couchedin the normative vocabulary of “shoulds.” These articulations also indicate that theagency of learners and teachers is secondary to their roles in the effective attainmentof standardized learning outcomes for the progress of the national and globaleconomy.

As noted in the preceding section of the chapter, INCF is much different (fromother Indian curriculum documents as well as PNCF and BNCF) in its understandingof child-centered education. The pedagogic approach developed is much moreconsistent with the view of school knowledge underlying the framework. Whilethere are conceptual issues, in general, the ethos of democratizing school knowledge

18 G. Sharma

as well as pedagogies for individual development is the overarching concern of theINCF. Dhankar (2012) states:

. . .in spite of considerable ambiguity in the document, NCF 2005 signifies an enormousimprovement on NCF 1988 and NCF 2000 as far as epistemology is considered. This isbecause it not only recognises need for epistemological considerations, but also attempts toprovide an epistemic framework for connecting aims and objectives to content and peda-gogical processes, however deficient this may be. (p. 10)

This is also reflected in INCF’s articulation of the agency of learners and teachersin the educational process. In this context, INCF states, “‘Child-centred’ pedagogymeans giving primacy to children’s experiences, their voices, and their activeparticipation. This kind of pedagogy requires us to plan learning in keeping withchildren’s psychological development and interests” (p. 13). While outlining thechallenges that INCF was responding to, Batra (2015) notes that the framework wasdeveloped as an attempt to bring a movement in the ossified national educationsystem. This system continues “to view teachers as ‘dispensers of information’ andchildren as ‘passive recipients; of an ‘education,’ sought to be ‘delivered’ in four-walled classrooms with little scope to develop critical thinking and understanding”(pp. 50–51). However, INCF has also been critiqued for not giving sufficientconsideration to teacher autonomy. As Batra (2005) argues:

NCF 2005 in its present form is unable to address this central challenge in the delivery ofquality education – transforming the role and performance of teachers. While it focuses onthe redesign and altering the perspective and content of the school curriculum, its expecta-tions of the teacher’s role continues to be largely prescriptive and often contradictory. . .Teachers are referred to more as passive agents of the state who are expected to be“persuaded and trained” to magically translate the vision of the NCF 2005 in schools. (p.4349)

Thus, while overall the three NCFs demonstrate alignments of varying degrees tothe child-centered constructivist paradigm, critical reflection on teacher autonomy iseither missing or is found to be lagging in its consideration of teachers’ reality. Thisgap may be seen as indicative of the complex context of educational practice in thethree developing countries. There is sufficient research evidence across the threecountries that indicates that the implementation of child-centered pedagogy inpractice is not a simple linear process (Clarke 2003; Halai 2013; Sriprakash 2009;Zufi 2018). Literature indicates that in a large part of the developing world, suchpedagogical ideas do not fully synchronize with the contexts and traditions ofteacher practice and social contexts of classrooms. Westbrook et al. (2013) note:

Over the last two decades, many developing countries have embarked on major curriculumand pedagogical reforms to meet the EFA goal, often with donor involvement. Developmentpartner pressure may have prompted countries to reforms that encourage more student- orlearner-centred, active and outcomes- or competency-based education. . .However, evenwhen well-planned, their implementation has not always been as successful as hoped, and

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 19

evidence suggests that a wide gap exists between the expected goals of curriculum reformsand actual progress achieved in classrooms, schools and numbers of teachers. . . (p. 4)

As noted earlier, the literature also indicates that while child-centered discoursealludes to democratization of education, it is often inconsistently packaged withtechno-managerial and instrumental norms of teaching-learning that are ultimatelyfocused on performance. These democratization- and performance-focused goalsmany a time are in stark contrast with the sociocultural beliefs that inform teacherpractice and classroom relationships. This “cultural distance” that seeps in theimplementation of child-centered progressive discourse in practice in the SouthAsian context is increasingly being discussed in curriculum research in the threecontexts (Rahman and Pandian 2018; Sriprakash 2009; Westbrook et al. 2013). Forinstance, taking Pakistan as a case in point, Kurshid (2010) argues:

Child-centred education is presented as the central component of “quality education.”However. . .these educational policies have Western notions of individual, difference andinclusion/exclusion embedded in them. For instance, the construction of “difference” definesthe core of the policies to support inclusive education in the West. These constructions areembedded in the educational policies internationalized by the international developmentagencies and may not capture the local realities in contexts like Pakistan. (245–246)

In a different context of English language teaching in Bangladesh, Rahman andPandian (2018, p. 48) make a similar argument, “the fundamental problem inBangladesh, like many other developing countries, lies in its misplaced faith inimported Western methodology as a means of improving its ELT curriculum.Curricular reform should be localised and based on social and classroom needs.”

In recent literature, child-centered pedagogy is also critiqued as having ethno-centric origins and pointing toward “White society as the developmental endpoint ofhuman history” (Fallace 2015, p. 74). The entry point of this pedagogic frame beingthe development discourse and external aid in South Asia doesn’t appear to becoincidental when read with this analysis. Such analysis and critiques may furtherenable understanding how child-centered pedagogy largely remains rhetoric andeven after decades of implementation doesn’t seem to transform classroom practicein development contexts (Clarke 2003; Halai 2013; Sriprakash 2009; Zufi 2018).

Conclusion

With a limited focus, this chapter has engaged with the broad patterns concerning theaims of education, school knowledge, and pedagogy that can be mapped in the mostrecent NCFs of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Three trends and issues emergefrom the review of the relevant documents and literature around these questions. Thefirst trend or rather an issue relates to the scope of secondary literature engaging withcurriculum in the three countries. Curriculum studies is an emerging knowledgedomain in the three countries. While the domain is developing at a fast pace, thereare also clear slants in the directions and trajectories of its progression. For instance,

20 G. Sharma

as stated in the chapter, country-specific as well as comparative literature engagingwith social science (especially history) textbooks and the question of nationalidentity is much well-developed in the three contexts. One reason for this is alsothe complex geopolitical relations of the three political neighbors with a sharedcolonial past that generate a much wider interest in the question of national identity.Similarly, the literature focusing on the impact of externally funded educationalprograms is also fairly developed with multi-country studies done by global educa-tion policy scholars. However, the emphasis of these studies is more on the politicaleconomy of global education policy and not necessarily on school curriculum thatmostly only serves as a case in point. At the same time, studies involving conceptualengagements with curriculum and multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary analysis ofcurriculum policy and practice are relatively few. This also points to the issue of lackof theorization of context-specific experience of curriculum practice in the threecountries. As a result, curriculum research largely draws theoretical frameworks andexplanations from the “developed world.”

The second comparative trend is that the impact of global education policyregimes that push for a learning outcomes-based model of curriculum is seen acrossthe curriculum-related documents. PNCF and BNCF adopt the model in an almostnaturalized manner. The policy advocacy by international non-state actors and donoragencies of externally sponsored projects is the means through which these dis-courses have come to have strong impressions on the curriculum policy and practice.While INCF does not demonstrate this trend explicitly, it is also located in a similarlarger policy context and is thereby critically responding to these discourses. In thiscontext, INCF (and other curricular reforms during 2005–2014) appears to be a kindof a deviation from the overarching policy paradigm pushing education toward aglobal knowledge economy. It is also an outcome of a counter-advocacy by a strongnetwork of progressive educationists (Sharma 2019). Thus, in general, across thethree countries, the NCFs have either embodied or been accompanied by the policyinitiatives for preparing “knowledge workers” (Patrick 2013) for the national andglobal economy. This coexists with the issue of marginal focus on the individual anddemocratic purposes of education vis-à-vis the pursuit of developing humanresource. In the case of PNCF and BNCF, it emerges that the concern for individualautonomy and the core democratic values of social justice and equity and theirreflection in pedagogic imagination have not found a prioritized space. While areference to child-centered pedagogy can be found in both the documents, the idea isnot consistently grounded in any theoretical paradigm and largely seems to havebeen interpreted as an assortment of strategies for effective teaching. INCF inheresthe principle of individual autonomy, a more (but not entirely) consistent process-focused child-centered perspective and a praxis orientation to school knowledge.However, at the same time, it does not suggest how such a paradigm could betranslated into practice by teachers and other actors.

Connected with the above is the third trend that concerns the “gap” between thecurriculum discourse that is drawn from the “Western” “progressive paradigm” andthe contexts of the developing South Asian countries. There is increasing recognitionof this gap in the empirical studies on curriculum practice in India, Pakistan, and

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 21

Bangladesh. These studies argue that on the one hand, the reform initiatives (like thatof child-centered education) are difficult to implement in most of South Asia giventhe structural challenges of education (such as shortage of teachers, learningresources and infrastructure, and quality of teacher preparation) (Westbrook et al.2013). On the other hand, these reform rhetorics are found to be culturally distantfrom the beliefs that inform educational practice and relationships in the develop-ment contexts. This scenario goes hand in hand with national politics that deeplyimplicates the official curriculum. Across the three contexts, “arriving at” a nationalcurriculum is a tense political exercise. There are diverse concerns, debates, dis-agreements, and compromises that operate in the sub-text of the documents. Thispolitics around official curriculum makes reform imaginations vulnerable to politicalaction with changes in the regimes of power. The past and present of curricularpolicies in these countries demonstrate several instances of this politics – with INCFbeing one of the more recent examples.

To conclude, it can be said that the curriculum frameworks of the three countriesreflect the influence of varied factors including national politics, pressures of theglobal economy, academic discourses, historical challenges, and future aspirations.The text of the curriculum frameworks can be seen as an attempt to find a balancebetween these factors. This often makes the documents complex and conceptuallyinconsistent while generating tensions in their linguistic framework and therebydifficult to understand and implement. Lack of multidisciplinary or interdisciplinaryresearch on curriculum documents adds to the opaqueness of the latent ideas andideologies that shape these documents.

Cross-References

▶Knowledge and Curriculum Landscapes in South Asia: An Introduction▶National Identity and the History Curriculum

References

Al Amin, M., & Greenwood, J. (2018). The examination system in Bangladesh and its impact: Oncurriculum, students, teachers and society. Language Testing in Asia, 8(4).

Alam, S. (2012). Neoliberalism and citizenship in the Bangladesh secondary school curriculum.Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 6(2), 16–30.

Alexander, N. (2001). Paying for education: How the World Bank and the International MonetaryFund influence education in developing countries. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3/4), 285–338.

Ali, S. (2013). Pakistan: Target revision in education policy. In M.-E.-R. Ahmed (Ed.), Education inWest Central Asia (pp. 163–177). London: Bloomsbury.

Ali, S. (2016). The sphere of authority: Governing education policy in Pakistan amidst globalpressures. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 217–237.

Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense?Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 14(1), 1–16.

22 G. Sharma

Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the right way: Markets, standards, god and inequality (2nd ed.).New York: Routledge.

Asadullah, N. M. (2009). Returns to private and public education in Bangladesh and Pakistan: Acomparative analysis. Journal of Asian Economics, 20(1), 77–86.

Batra, P. (2005). Voice and agency of teachers: Missing link in National Curriculum Framework2005. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(40), 4347–4356.

Batra, P. (2015). Curriculum in India. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum studies in India: Intellectualhistories, present circumstances (pp. 35–63). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Children’s Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act. (2009). http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/free_and_compulsory_NEW

Clarke, P. (2003). Culture of classroom reform: The case of District Primary Education Project(DPEP), India. Comparative Education, 39(1), 27–44.

Crook, N. (1996). Transmission of knowledge in South Asia: Essays on education, religion, history,and politics. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Dahal, M., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2014). Private non-state sector engagement in the provision ofeducational services at the primary and secondary levels in South Asia: An analytical reviewof its role in school enrollment and student achievement (World Bank policy research workingpaper 6899). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Delhi Historians’ Group. (2001). Communalisation of education: The history textbooks contro-versy. New Delhi: Delhi Historian’s Group.

Deyshappriya, N. R. (2018, July 31). Examining poverty trends in South Asian countries: Where isSri Lanka among its South Asian counterparts? London School of Economics Blogpost.Retrieved on 1 Apr 2020 from: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2018/07/31/examining-poverty-trends-in-south-asian-countries-where-is-sri-lanka-among-its-south-asian-counterparts/

Dhankar, R. (2012). Curriculum framework in search of a coherent epistemology: A case study ofIndian National Curriculum Frameworks. Paper presented at annual conference of the philos-ophy of education society of Great Britain, New College, Oxford.

Dhankar, R. (2020). Draft NEP 2016: Education for ‘citizenship’ or ‘resource development for apliable workforce’? In J. Raina (Ed.), Elementary education in India: Policy shifts, issues andchallenges (pp. 91–107). New Delhi: Routledge.

Dundar, H., Béteille, T., Riboud, M., & Deolalikar, A. (2014). Student learning in South Asia:Challenges, opportunities, and policy priorities. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrievedon 1 Apr 2020 from: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-1-4648-0160-0?chapterTab¼true.

Durrani, N. (2013). Pakistan: Curriculum and construction of national identity. In M.-E.-R. Ahmed(Ed.), Education in West Central Asia (pp. 221–239). London: Bloomsbury.

Durrani, N., & Dunne, M. (2010). Curriculum and national identity: Exploring the links betweenreligion and nation in Pakistan. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(2), 215–240.

Durrani, N., & Nawani, D. (2020). Knowledge and curriculum landscapes in South Asia: Anintroduction. In P. M. Sarangapani & R. Pappu (Eds.), Handbook of education systems inSouth Asia. Singapore: Springer. Retrieved on 10 Apr 2020 from: https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5#about.

Durrani, N., Kaderi, A. S., & Anand, K. (2020). National identity and the history curriculum. In P.M. Sarangapani & R. Pappu (Eds.), Handbook of education systems in South Asia (pp. 1–27).Singapore: Springer. Retrieved on 10 Apr 2020 from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_41-1.

Fallace, T. (2015). The savage origins of child-centered pedagogy, 1871–1913. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 52(1), 73–103.

Ghosh, S. (2014). Identity, politics, and nation-building in history textbooks in Bangladesh. Journalof Educational Media, Memory, and Society, 6(2), 25–41.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 23

Halai, A. (2013). Implementing curriculum change: Small steps towards a big change. In L. Tikly &A. M. Barrett (Eds.), Education quality and social justice in the global south: Challenges forpolicy, practice and research. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Hamid, M. O., & Rahman, A. (2019). Language in education policy in Bangladesh: A neoliberalturn? In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook oflanguage education policy in Asia (pp. 382–394). Abingdon: Routledge.

Haq, M., & Haq, K. (1997). Human development in South Asia. Karachi: Oxford University Press.Hossain, M. Z. (2015). National curriculum 2012: Moving towards the 21 century. Bangladesh

Education Journal, 14(1), 8–23.Jain, M., & Nawani, D. (2011). Learners and learning in India: History, perspectives and contexts.

In Y. Zhao, J. Lei, G. Li, M. Fang He, K. Okano, N. Megahed, D. Gamage, & H. Ramanathan(Eds.), Handbook of Asian education: A cultural perspective (pp. 503–528). New York:Routledge.

Jamil, B. R. (2009). Curriculum reforms in Pakistan: A glass half full or half empty? Paperpresented at the school curriculum policies and practices in South Asian Countries conference,NCERT, New Delhi.

Joshi, S. (2010). Contesting histories and nationalist geographies: A comparison of school text-books in India and Pakistan. South Asian History and Culture, 1(3), 357–377.

Kabir, M. H. (2015). NCTB English curriculum and implementation of the textbook at primarylevel in Bangladesh: An assessment. Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 15(12), 69–76.

Kelly, A. V. (2009). Curriculum theory and practice. London: Sage.Kumar, K. (1988). Origins of India’s “textbook culture”. Comparative Education Review, 32(4),

452–464.Kumar, K. (2001). Prejudice and pride: School histories of the freedom struggle in India and

Pakistan. New Delhi: Viking.Kumar, K. (2005). Political agenda of education: A study of colonialist and nationalist ideas (2nd

ed.). New Delhi: Sage.Kumar, K., & Sarangapani, P. M. (2004). History of quality debate. Paper commissioned for the

EFA global monitoring report 2005: The quality imperative. UNESCO, Paris.Kurshid, A. (2010). The politics of inclusion and the search for the “other”: The international

education policies and the politics of “difference” in Pakistan. In C. A. Grant & A. Portera(Eds.), Intercultural and multicultural education: Enhancing global interconnectedness (pp.245–257). London: Routledge.

MFEPT. (2017/2019). National curriculum framework, Pakistan. Islamabad: MFEPT.MHRD. (1993). Learning without burden. Report of the National Advisory Committee (Chairman:

Yash Pal). New Delhi: MHRD.MHRD. (2012). Vision of teacher education in India: Quality and regulatory perspective. Report of

the high-powered commission on teacher education constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India (Chairperson: Justice Verma). New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

MHRD. (2019). Draft national education policy, 2019. New Delhi: MHRD. Retrieved on 10 Mar2020 from: https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf

Muhammad, Y., & Brett, P. (2016). The challenges of undertaking citizenship education research inPakistan. In S. Fan & J. Fielding-Wells (Eds.),What is next in educational research? Rotterdam:SensePublishers.

Mundy, K., & Verger, A. (2015). The World Bank and the global governance of education in achanging world order. International Journal of Educational Development, 40(1), 9–18.

National Education Policy Review Team. (2007). Education in Pakistan: A white paper reviseddraft document to debate and finalize the national education policy. Islamabad: NationalEducation Policy Review Team.

Nawani, D. (2017). School textbooks: From sublime to the ridiculous. Economic and PoliticalWeekly, 52(9), 16–19.

24 G. Sharma

Nayyar, A. H., & Salim, A. (2003). The subtle subversion: The state of curricula and textbooks inPakistan Urdu, English, social studies and civics. Islamabad: Sustainable Development PolicyInstitute.

NCERT. (1991).Minimum levels of learning at primary stage: Report of the committee set up by theMinistry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India.New Delhi: NCERT.

NCERT. (2005). National curriculum framework (Chairman: Yash Pal). New Delhi: NCERT.NCTB. (2012). National curriculum: Classes VI to X. Dhaka: NCTB.NCTB. (2017, March 27). The history of NCTB. Retrieved on 10 Mar 2020 from: http://www.nctb.

gov.bd/site/page/3318f1ce-a485-416b-bd4c-38aa0300c508/-NCTE. (2009). National curriculum framework for teacher education: Towards preparing profes-

sional and humane teacher. New Delhi: NCTE.Obaidul, H. M., & Rahman, A. (2019). Language in education policy in Bangladesh: A neoliberal

turn? In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook oflanguage education policy in Asia (pp. 382-398). London: Routledge.

Patrick, F. (2013). Neoliberalism, the knowledge economy, and the learner: Challenging theinevitability of the commodified self as an outcome of education. International ScholarlyResearch Notices Education, 2013, 180705.

People’s Action for Learning Network. (2017). Citizen-led assessments of basic learning. Retrievedon 30 Mar 2020 from: http://img.asercentre.org/docs/Impact/ASER%20Abroad/PalNetworkMay2017.pdf

Pinar, W., Borg, C., & Mayo, P. (2007). Curriculum as a political text. Counterpoints, 276, 77–85.Qazi, M. H., & Shah, S. (2019). A study of Bangladesh’s secondary school curriculum textbooks in

students’ national identity construction in an overseas context. Asia Pacific Journal of Educa-tion, 39(4), 501–516.

Rahman, M., & Pandian, A. (2018). A critical investigation of English language teaching inBangladesh. English Today, 34(3), 43–49.

Raina, J. (Ed.). (2020). Elementary education in India: Policy shifts, issues and challenges. NewDelhi: Routledge.

Rampal, A. (2019). Draft national education policy pushes centralising agenda, short changes poorstudents. The Wire. Retrieved from: https://thewire.in/education/national-education-policy-draft-hrd-ministry

Rosser, Y. C. (2003). Curriculum as destiny: Forging national identity in India, Pakistan andBangladesh (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Texas. Retrieved on 10 Mar 2020 from:https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/891

Roy, K. (2019). Examining the draft National Education Policy, 2019. Economic and PoliticalWeekly, 54(25). (Featured Articles: Engage). Retrieved from: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/examining-draft-national-education-policy-2019.

Sadgopal, A. (2005). On the pedagogy of writing a National Curriculum Framework: Somereflections from an insider. Social Scientist, 33(9/10), 23–36.

Sadgopal, A. (2006). Dilution, distortion and diversion: A post-Jomtien reflection on educationpolicy. In R. Kumar (Ed.), The crisis of elementary education in India. New Delhi: Sage.

Saigol, R. (2005). Enemies within and enemies without: The besieged self in Pakistani textbooks.Futures, 37(9), 1005–1035.

Saxena, S. (2006). Questions of epistemology: Re-evaluating constructivism and the NCF 2005.Contemporary Education Dialogue, 4(1), 52–71.

Setty, R. (2014). Dialogism in India’s new national curriculum framework for teacher education.Contemporary Education Dialogue, 11(1), 67–94.

Sharma, G. (2015). From curriculum to textbooks: Post 2005 revised textbooks and social exclu-sion. The Primary Teacher, 40(1), 50–69.

Sharma, G. (2019). Policy and regulatory changes in teacher education in India: Concerns, debates andcontestations. Economic and Political Weekly, 54(2). (Featured Articles: Engage). Retreived from:https://www.epw.in/engage/article/policy-and-regulatory-changes-teacher-education-in-india.

Conceptions of School Curriculum in South Asia 25

Singh, P. (2015). Performativity and pedagogising knowledge: Globalising educational policyformation, dissemination and enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 363–384.

Sriprakash, A. (2009). Joyful learning in rural Indian primary schools: An analysis of social controlin the context of child-centred discourses. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and Interna-tional Education, 39(5), 629–641.

Sriprakash, A. (2012). Pedagogies for development: The politics and practice of child-centrededucation in India. Dordrecht: Springer.

Thachil, T. (2009). Neoliberalism’s two faces in Asia: Globalization, educational policies, andreligious schooling in India, Pakistan, and Malaysia. Comparative Politics, 41(4), 473–494.

Tilak, J. B. G. (1999). Education and poverty in South Asia. Prospects, 29(4), 517–533.Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.UNESCO. (1990). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic

learning needs. Paris: UNESCO.UNESCO. (2000, April 26–28). The Dakar framework for action: Education for all – Meeting our

collective needs. Paper presented at the World Education Forum, Dakar.Verger, A., & Parcerisa, L. (2017). A difficult relationship. Accountability policies and teachers:

International evidence and key premises for future research. In M. Akiba & G. LeTendre (Eds.),International handbook of teacher quality and policy (pp. 241–254). New York: Routledge.

Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. K. (Eds.). (2018). Global education policy andinternational development: New agendas, issues and policies. London: Bloomsbury.

Westbrook, J., Durrani, N., Brown, R., Orr, D., Pryor, J., Boddy, J., & Salvi, F. (2013). Pedagogy,curriculum, teaching practices and teacher education in developing countries: Final report.Retrieved on 31 Mar 2020 from: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid¼3433

Zufi, A. A. (2018). A comparative study of the pedagogy of learner-centred education in Bangla-desh and China: Implications of policy borrowing. American Journal of Educational Research,6(1), 70–75.

26 G. Sharma