Foundational Language and Mathematics

February 1, 2025

Rohit Dhankar
Entire Indian education system, hundreds of NGOs and corporate foundations are trying to teach our children reading-writing, counting and fundamental arithmetic operations. They are finding this task very confusing and extremely daunting. The NCERT and NGOs are churning out literature on how to tame this beast of reading-writing and counting, the traditional 3Rs (Reading, wRiting and aRithmatic). The profusion of literature and co-called innovative approaches should actually enlighten the teachers and ground level workers; in reality it is making the mental fog of confusion impossibly denser by the day. And the beast of 3Rs is determinedly refusing to be tamed, scaring this rag-tag army of education workers out of their wits.
Why so? Why are we being continuously trounced by this formidable enemy for several decades without any light at the end of the tunnel? How to make sense of this situation? Pondering over this question a paragraph from Kant comes to mind. He writes:
“A sum of rules, even of practical rules, is called theory if those rules are thought as principles having a certain generality, so that abstraction is made from a multitude of conditions that yet have a necessary influence on their application. Conversely, not every doing is called practice, but only that effecting of an end which is thought as the observance of certain principles of procedure represented in their generality.”
In comparison with Kant’s writing generally the paragraph is rather simple. First, he defines theory, and then practice making connection between the two transparent.
Theory (in this para): Is sum of rules which are abstracted from multiple conditions (contexts) having a certain generality (applicable to many contexts in terms of making sense of them and acting), and these general rules have a necessary influence on their application in practical contexts. Which means these rules are not vacuous musings of an idle mind, but have practical value in understanding and action.
Practice (in this para): Not every action is practice, only those actions which are guided by the procedures represented in the theoretical principles and directed to an end, that is, objective to be achieved. Which means physical monkey activities of energetic running round or mental random gymnastics don’t constitute practice. A series of conscious acts woven into a procedure directed at an end and guided by theoretical principles makes the collection of those acts into worthwhile practice. This is especially true of educational practice.
Further down the essay Kant states that there is a necessary gap between theory and practice which is impossible to fill however detailed and comprehensive the theory one tris to make. That gap can be filled only by the judgment (and action) of the practitioner on the ground; in case of education, often on his/her feet in the classroom facing 30 or more active but possibly unruly minds. Therefore, there is a possibility of a theoretician who will fail as a practitioner, and a practitioner who will fail because of his/her blindness of theory. Regarding a theoretically blind practitioner he says, “no one can pretend to be practically proficient in a science and yet scorn theory without declaring that he is an ignoramus in his field”.
Could it be that our education system is populated either by supposed theoreticians who lack practical judgment and ability to translate an idea into action or theoretically blind “ignoramuses”, as Kant calls them? One declared to “know” how to achieve desired results in 3Rs but cannot himself do it; other though engages children up to some extent but fails to achieve the goals because does not fully understand what he is doing and why?
If this perspective has any worth, then we need people who have a rigorously justifiable theory and can competently translate it into action; that is, can fill the gap by their own judgment and choice of action. Capsules of activities and manuals of methods will not be able to do it. One must understand that manuals to be useful have to be read, understood, evaluated, visualized into action, worked bout in terms of material and activities and engagement with children. This brings us back to theory as success accomplishment in all these tasks requires a framework of principles well understood, justified for one’s own satisfaction and cognitively internalized.
To understand implications of this idea let’s take an example.
NCFSE 23 states that “[A]ttaining Foundational Literacy and Numeracy for all students must therefore become an immediate national mission and a central goal of the Foundational Stage curriculum.”
The foundational literacy (I prefer to call it Foundational Language, rather than literacy, but using the term here for ease of communication in the currently popular discourse) is explicated as “Literacy means that all students demonstrate fluent and critical reading, writing, and comprehension capacities in the Language”. It says that “At the end of this (Foundational) Stage, students are expected to read fluently in R1 and comprehend what they read, and begin writing sentences in R1 to express experiences, themes, and what they see in pictures.” Foundational stage is from age 3+ to 8 years, that is from pre-primary to standard 2.
Similarly, foundational numeracy (Arithmetic) emphasises “abilities to read and write, and perform basic operations with numbers” up to 99; and dealing with various measurements and simple problem solving.
As a teacher if one has to achieve all this s/he needs to understand a fair bit of structure of language and its nature, how it develops, what relationship it has with human life, education and child’s mind, and so on. Second, s/he has to form some commitment to this goal, which cannot come from simple prescription in the curriculum, but requires a vision of education as a whole and place of language in it as well as human life. Third, s/he needs to have a fair idea of children’s development of learning abelites and how their minds work. Forth, she will have to plan a route map of development from the mind and capabilities of a 3+ year old to what is defined here as Foundational Literacy. Fragmented manual reading will not work. A comprehensive plan may succeed. The issue is how to develop all this and convince the teacher, connect all this with her cognition and moral principles?
We all know it very well that development of such detailed frameworks of principles, judgment to use them properly and repertoire of practical skills to translate it into action takes time, hard work and resources. But the quick-fixers enter and convince us that simple discrete capsules of activities and packages of TLM will accomplish the task. What we really need is a carefully organized experience to work from theory to classroom practices and a vision of classroom practice that ensures gradual step-by-step progression of each student.
Digantar has announced an eight-days residential workshop precisely to focus on these issues. The workshop will provide enough theoretical background to situate foundational language and mathematics teaching in human life, education and curriculum. Then will proceed to take participants through a method of helping children achieve the goals of Foundational Language and Mathematics (FLM). The participants will be exposed to and provided opportunity to practice a step-by-stem teaching programme on guided, self-paced, conceptual learning, which not only achieves the stated goals but also makes children motivated self-learners and develops their confidence to use language, mathematics and their own thinking. The complete package needed for such a teaching programme will also be introduces. The package includes all needed TLM, sample worksheets and notes for the teacher.

यह कार्यशाला हिंदी में होगी।
रजिस्ट्रेशन की अंतिम तिथि: 10 फरवरी 2025
रजिस्ट्रेशन फॉर्म के लिए लिंक: https://lnkd.in/gBK3hhYM

अधिक जनकारी के लिए: फोन—9799498936, ईमेल—taru.digantar@gmail

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Job opportunity: Principal

October 25, 2024

An opportunity for those who can take-up a challenging job

We are reporting this advertisement. A few candidates whom we found suitable among the earlier applicants seem to have got jobs elsewhere before we completed the process. This time we will keep the process brief.

It is a challenging job. However, there is a very good team and a stable organisation to support the principal. Details of expectations are given in the job description.

If you want to see the location and satellite view of the school just type “Digantar Vidyalaya Bhavgarh” in google maps. History and pedagogy of the school and philosophy of the organisation can be found at digantar.org.

Detailed Job Description

Principal Position at Digantar Vidyalaya, Jaipur

Introduction

Digantar, established in 1978 as an alternative school in Jaipur, provides completely free education to 186 children across its two schools, serving the local community. We are embarking on a transformative journey to ensure the financial self-sustenance of one of the two Digantar Vidyalayas and to expand our unique self-paced, independent learning approach. Under Vision 2030, we plan to introduce a model in one of our Vidyalayas where 50% of students will continue to receive free education, while the other 50% will pay fees.

For further information visit: https://www.digantar.org

Key Responsibilities

In order to transform our existing school, we need a principal with a deep commitment to the level of obsession to actualize this vision into reality. While we aim to keep the job description concise – essentially, ‘Transform and Run the school!’- Below are the key indicators for the broader responsibilities of the position:

  1. Make and implement strategies to achieve the 50-50 model of free and fee-paying students while ensuring socio-political equality and quality education.
  2. Community Engagement and Admissions: Build partnerships with parents, community members, and educational partners to support the school’s mission and ensure admissions of both fee-paying and non-fee-paying students.
  3. Oversee Curriculum and Pedagogy: Refine and align the curriculum with pedagogy, recruit teachers and plan capacity building programmes.
  4. Implement Financial Models: Develop fundraising strategies, and build community support to ensure the school’s financial self-sufficiency.
  5. Ensure Compliance and Efficiency: Oversee school operations, including curriculum alignment, resource management, infrastructure upgrades and sustain school culture. 

Essential Qualifications

  1. Master’s degree in any of the subjects from a recognized university.
  2. A degree in education, such as a B.Ed. or its equivalent, or an M.Ed., is required.
  3. A Ph.D. in the relevant area will be advantageous.
  4. Experience of 5 years or above as a principal of a financially successful school.
  5. Proficiency in English and Hindi languages is essential.
  6. Excellent communication skills with the ability to convince parents and build partnerships.
  • Knowledge of educational aspects, policies, and a strong conviction in the idea of education.
  • Proven leadership experience in education, ideally in a transformative role.
  • Deep understanding of progressive educational practices and their implementation.
  • Strong financial intelligence and experience in managing budgets and fundraising initiatives.
  • School principal holds a pivotal role within the administrative structure of schools, collaborating effectively with fellow administrators, staff, teachers, students, and parents. She/he must have the disposition to maintain harmonious and productive relationships with all these stakeholders.

Remuneration and Location

  1. The consolidated salary that is negotiable up 1, 10,000/- per month.
  2. The job location is Jaipur.

Selection Process and Important Dates

  1. Please fill in the basic information using the link provided below and upload your CV given at the end of the form: https://bit.ly/Information_Digantar.
  2. The deadline for submitting the form is 2nd November 2024.
  3. After reviewing the information and CVs, selected candidates will be informed via phone or email by 4th November 2024 for the next steps.

For shortlisted candidates, the selection process will consist of two stages:

  1. An online conversation with the Secretary of Digantar
  2. A final in-person interview conducted by a panel of approximately 4 to 5 members.

For further information, please contact: Mr. Khyaliram Swami, Mobile No: 9214181380 Email: kswami.digantar@gmail.com

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

When schools re-open: break the stranglehold

June 27, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

Subir Shukla (a well-known educational consultant and old friend) asked a question on the twitter: “With schools opening after the summer break, what would you like to see teachers/schools NOT do? And what SHOULD they do?” This is a quick response to this question. Since this response is ‘quick’ and I do not have much time, it will sound to be somewhat forthright and impatient, but that is only because of lack of time, believe me. 😊

This is what, to start with at the first sight, the schools/teachers and the system should do, it includes both NOT as well as SHOIULD do:

  1. Stop harping on ill-defined ideas like learning-loss and learning recovery
  2. Pay attention to learning that helps development of mind, stop worrying about coming at par with class
  3. Restructure the school
  4. Restructure, not reduce, the curriculum
  5. Ban quick-fix doctors from education system

A little explanation of all these recommendations seems to be in order, therefore, attempted below.

1. Stop harping on ill-defined ideas like learning-loss and learning recovery

Both concepts (learning-loss and learning recovery) are ill defined and unhelpful. Learning-loss can be understood (i) as loss of time and opportunity for learning, (ii) children forgetting what they had learned before the schools closed.

Forgetting some of what children have already learnt is part and parcel of education process, it happens all the time. Revision may be necessary even in the normal course of school. Now since the unavailability of school was much longer therefor this forgetting of concepts, procedures, habits, and information may be much more. But one, children’s minds had not stopped making sense of their lives, therefore, have been maturing normally, all other things being equal. Thus, they will have greater capability to make sense of what they earlier learned only half understood. And two, what they had actually learnt will leave a trace of familiarity in their minds, that will help remembering and understanding it better quickly now. Third, conceptual understanding grows in our minds unknown to us. The mind keeps making connections with what we have learnt with our total repertoire of conceptual wealth. This process never stops. Therefore, together with forgetting of some factual bits of information this enriching of conceptual connections should also have happened. Because of these three factors in the hands of a good, hardworking teacher who knows his job, it should not be a huge problem.

The loss of time and opportunity is real and can not be done away, but this is a loss only if one is deeply given to intense competition. What a child C should have learnt at age x, if she learns at age x+1 or 2, what is the big harm? It becomes disturbing only when you compare this child with other children of her age who have gone far ahead, and this fact will put this child in a disadvantage in comparison to other children of her age with better opportunities. This is a chronic problem of Indian education with or without closing of school for long time. The opportunities and cultural capital distribution is extremely unequal. Yes, this closure of school will aggravate it, but if one forgets about competing and focuses on the development of child’s mind, it may not seem such a big issue. I know more than ten people who entered school late, passed their secondary 2 or 3 years after other children of their age and are very successful and good people today.

2. Pay attention to learning that helps development of mind, stop worrying about coming at par with class

Not all mugging up and collection of disconnected bits of information helps development of mind. Only that learning which integrates with the well-established conceptual structures, becomes ready part of the thinking processes, acquires internal justification due to logical connections, and used in decision making helps. The mugged-up bits only form a burden on the mind and make it incapable of justification, certainly, clear thinking and sound judgment for which one may be able to take a stand and act upon it boldly. 

The army of the so-called school management experts, accelerated learning experts and quick-fix doctors simply regurgitate half digested words and their actions on the ground have been consistently unsuccessful in last at the least 40 years. Sorry to say this so bluntly, but I often doubt if their words have any meanings in their own heads or are just empty sounds to produce a favorable response from the audience.

Quick-fix methods of bringing children at par will not help in development of mind and conviction. Rigorous conceptual understanding with adequate time and self-exertion are the necessary ingredients for that. Therefore, abandon ‘quick-fix’ and ‘bringing at par’ attempts which are ways of squandering scarce resources by people who know very little of education. Start patiently from the solid foundation of understanding, skills and habits children have and built patiently on that. The creation will turn out to be more beautiful, more strong and immensely more valuable to the children individually, and to us all socially.

3. Restructure the school

What I have said above brings us to the question: then how shall we proceed in order to give adequate time and opportunity to learn and exert herself to each child? They have lost time and now have to cover the syllabus in a short time to come at par with their class, so what can be done?

This line of thinking is illogical, straight jacketed and closes options for devising thoughtful workable solutions. Therefore, dismantle the structure of the school, at the least for three years, as a measure of finding emergency solutions. Abolish classes, grades or standards; whatever you call them. Let children learn from where they are and with their own pace, but demand hard-work, rigor and give adequate guidance.

After dismantling grades have a thoughtful assessment of children’s abilities (come out of the infatuation with this false goddess called ‘learning’) in language, mathematics, making sense of the world, necessary school subjects, clear thinking, use of memory, self-confidence and habits of applying themselves to a task. This could be spread over a week. On the basis of this assessment re-reorganize the school in vertical learning groups where children can progress with their own pace, help each other and can learn to learn on with their own efforts. Forget about pass-fail and examinations and start keeping detailed and meticulous progress records.

4. Restructure, not reduce, the curriculum

Reducing the curriculum to come up to the age-appropriate class is nothing more than a scheme of free distribution of certificates. What helps in life and makes one capable to finding one’s place in the society is not a piece of paper but the capabilities one develops and growth of mind, that is reason, repertoire of conceptual knowledge, convictions, self-confidence and habits of working hard. After dismantling the stifling structure of the school one can organize the curriculum in a learning and development-curve rather than steps (classes) to be used for pass-fail. A thoughtful teacher having an idea of epistemic and temporal priorities of concepts and conceptual structures can easily reorganize the existing curriculum in a developmental curve on which children can progress with ease.

Those who are interested in details of how such a school and curriculum can be organized can read here https://rohitdhankar.com/2017/03/25/beyond-the-oxymoronic-idea-of-no-detention-policy/

5. Ban quick-fix doctors from education system

The system and teachers will exert themselves to find good, appropriate and workable ways of tackling the problem only if the easier, more or less effortless, but unproductive ways are not available. There is a virtual army of foundations, expert NGOs, newly created consultancies and so on which all claim to have found fool-proof quick method to solve entrenched educational problems. They usually hire any Tom, Dick and Harry; train them either on the job or in about two and a half days; declare them to be experts; and let them loose on the poor teachers and schools. These non-serious (I am resisting the urge to call them charlatans, please note, am not calling them so) people should be rigorously examined and be allowed only if they have something of value to offer. Otherwise banned.

If we do not have clarity of mind or resources or courage to take such tough measures, we are just making pretentious noises and our children will continue to suffer.

********

27th June 2022

Rohit Dhankar

Professor, Azim Premji University, Bangalore.

Secretary, Digantar, Jaipur.

The views expressed here are entirely mine (Rohit), neither of my organizations endorses or is responsible for them.

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Misinterpreting secularism, Indian culture and education

July 6, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Professor V. Santhakumar’s article “Indian Culture, Secularism and Education: Let us be Realistic and Pragmatic” completely misses the point regarding secularism in education due to misinterpretation of the ideal of secularism. He assumes that the central point in the ideal of secularism is to make disappear “non-secular ways of life through” secular education and that there is a necessary dichotomy between emphasis on Indian culture on one hand and secularism on the other in school education.

The declaration of Indian constitution “to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual” is an embodiment of secular ideal in the constitution, right from the beginning, despite of not having the word “secular” in it before 42nd amendment. The declaration in the preamble does not make a distinction on the basis of religion among the citizens and is not guided by any religious doctrine. It is a state policy which implies in its very proclamation that ‘religious doctrine and ideals’ are not going to govern or influence the relationship between the citizens and the nation state.

For the rigour of this blog piece it is enough to say that secularism “in the twentieth century has come to refer to two interrelated practices: (1) a mode of political organization in which the state is neutral with reference to all established religions; and (2) later in the century, a political practice of the state that protects the rights of minorities in a multicultural society”.[1] The ideal of secularism then is an ideal to be followed by the state; in separating its policy from the religion and religious considerations. And it is not about making people abandon their religious or communitarian practices. Some religious practices, however, may have to be restricted in case they interfere with others’ rights and entitlements; that will be necessary for the state to fulfil its promise to all its citizens. I will discuss some such cases below.

Strictly for the present purpose, if we take the promises of justice, liberty, equality and dignity made by Indian constitution in its preamble (and then expanded in fundamental rights) then the state, on certain occasions, may come into conflict with religious practices of various communities. The constitution makes these promises to the ‘individuals’ not to ‘religious communities’ and makes these promises to all its citizens without any consideration of their practiced or professed faiths.

If a religion prescribes unequal treatment to its adherents then the state has to take note of it, and if any individual approaches the state with a complaint of injustice or inequality or encroachment upon his/her liberty etc. then the state is duty bound to protect its promises made to individuals irrespective of their religious affiliations. For example, from this perspective whatever the religious communities may believe the state cannot allow unequal access to public facilities (public transport, hotels) in the name of caste. If the state decides for health and other reasons to ban marriage before 18 years, then it cannot make considerations on the basis of Manu’s criteria of marrying a girl before puberty or Mohammad’s example of marrying a girl of 9 years. In such cases a secular state necessarily comes into conflict with practices recommended by religions. But this is because these practices trample on girl’s rights grow up as free individuals.

In India we are not very secular in our lives and the state actually does not fulfil the promises it made in the constitution. (That, however, does not make secular ideals any less important.) Our politicians indulge into non-secular practices as office bearers of state (Modi’s meditation in the cave) and we have state schemes that are non-secular in character (Kejriwal’s promise to send elderly Delhi residents on religious tourism on public exchequer). Modi and Kejriwal are free to practice their religion in their personal life, but not as office bearers and as state schemes. That is what secularism means.

If a religion wants to encroach on public spaces in the name of Ganesh or Durga puja or in the name of Friday namaz, it is the duty of the state to protect other citizens’ right to use those spaces; and not to advise people to stop either Ganesh/Durga puja or Friday namaz. That is none of the states business, all the state is concerned is that you practice your religion privately.

If a religion does not want to give women equal share in ancestral property, as was the case with Hindu women till as recently as 2005 and is the case with the Muslim women today, then the state is duty bound to protect the individual right of the woman who considers herself wronged. If the state does not do that with all women whatever their religion than it is not fulfilling the constitutional promise. However, if the woman herself in pursuance of her religious beliefs forfeits her rightful share, then the state, as far as I understand, has no business interfering in it. Professor Santhakumar assumes that the secular ideal is about not allowing the woman to donate her property to her brothers under her exploitative religious beliefs; as far as I understand, that is not the case, it is only if the woman wants her equal share, the state should ensure that she gets it. The secular ideal provides a framework of liberties and entitlements to each individual irrespective of their religion, it does not force them to depart from their religious practices if they do not encroach on other citizens’ rights.

Religions are known throughout history to accord unequal status to sections of population, treatment of Dalits and women in Hindu practices is an example. Treatment of women in Islam is another example. Whether the communities themselves reflect and amend these practices or not, the state is duty bound to provide opportunities through a legal framework to those who want to resist this unequal treatment.

The religions also have had ideals of not allowing other religions flourish or even exist. And the conversion of non-believers is mandated as sacred duty of believers in scriptures of some religions. That has been interpreted as theological legitimacy of conversion through force, fraud, fear and allurements; and is being practiced even today. A secular state that gives equal rights to practice their faiths to all its citizens can not allow this. And has to intervene even if the religious communities do not reflect and change themselves. And our students should understand these ideals and positions and should build a rational commitment to them. That is the duty of education.

Religions also put restrictions on people not belonging to their own communities. The present-day beef ban is an example. Not being able to buy meat on certain festival days is another example.   This is not about demanding from Hindus that they eat beef, nor from Jains that they eat meat. They are free to eat what they like; it is only about the rights of other citizens to eat what they want. It can not wait for the communities to change themselves and become open minded, it is about telling them that there are other people who live here, and they do not have any right to force their choices on them. And our future citizens should understand this, through education, of course.

Another issue in India, and in the world, has been of expressing one’s opinion freely without fear. This is part of liberty of thought, expression and belief. A citizen does have the right to critically analyse the doings and preaching of Ram, Krishna, Mahavir, Buddh, Christ, Muhammad and all such religious figures. And also has the right to express his/her opinion. If he/she finds something obnoxious in their behaviour or preaching, she has the right to say so openly and without fear. This does not mean asking believers to be critical about their religious figures or dogmas, it is not about forcing the believers to read or listen to such criticism. This is only about other citizens’ right to think and speak what they want to. Again, it can not wait till the communities themselves become wise enough to see that they should not try to control other people’s thinking. Citizens in a democracy need to understand and value this freedom.

This is about accepting others’ rights to live as they want, and not about wanting them to change their practices. If we want a multireligious and multicultural society to live in harmony, we have to get across these ideas and build commitment to them through education. That is where secular ideals are necessary in education.

This is true that these ideals can properly function in a society only when people accept them, and all the efforts about multicultural understanding and reflection within communities that Professor Santhakumar recommends are needed, and are very important. But that does not do away with emphasis on secular ideal in schools and in education.

In education and curriculum fair representation of all cultures and religious beliefs is another big issue. And that can not be avoided. I believe our education has been too shy (rather scared?) of critiquing cultural practices and religious dogmas in schools. If we want multiculturalism to flourish, we have to bring the critical understanding of religions in the curriculum and have to learn to call a spade a spade.

Professor Santhakumar is not correct when he claims that there is no evidence that ‘secular education’ makes people secular. Indian constitution is an example of people understanding the need to co-exist within the same country with multiple religious and cultural beliefs. And that was right after the country was divided on the basis of religion. And the education of the framers of constitution played a big role in that. His examples of educated Indians re-emphasizing their cultural roots do not negate this as long as they are not encroaching on others’ rights.

Another ideal that is necessary part of the secularism is using your own mind, being critical, being rational. The freedoms given to citizens and demand for responsible use of them necessarily requires development of critical thinking and demanding reasons and evidence for beliefs and actions. If education does not do it, democracy can not function. And that demands being fair in analysing all ideas religious or otherwise.

This also has to be done more seriously that the Draft National Education Policy recommends. It talks of the ‘skill’ of ‘critical thinking’ umpteen number of times, and even proclaims that “[T]extbooks will aim to contain only correct, relevant material; when unproven hypotheses or guesses are included, this will be explicitly stated.” Also talks of ‘evidence based’ thinking, again as a skill, many times. And then also makes claims like “India’s languages are … most scientific, and most expressive in the world”, and that “The concept of zero and its use in the place value system … also originated in India, over 2000 years ago”. (Emphasis added) By their own proclamation they should at the least have called them “hypotheses”. How do they defend the claim of Indian languages being most scientific and expressive? What is their evidence that zero was being used as a number 2000 years ago? One wonder how critically they have thought about these claims and what evidence they have for them. But then, when ‘critical thinking’ is taught as a ‘skill’ that is all you can expect. Our curriculum under secular ideals should have done better than that; and now will necessarily have to improve.

Calling secularism completely an alien ideal does gross injustice to Indian culture and its openness. It is true that the modern formulation of it as ‘separation of the state and the Church’ comes from Europe and is negatively inspired by Christianity due to its stranglehold on the state and people’s minds. But the ideals of people professing and practicing different faiths living together and state treating them equally—that does not necessarily mean treating ‘well’—is an age-old norm in India. A historian friend of mine told me that Ashok was fair to Buddhist monks and Brahmins in giving grants and donations, in spite of himself being a Buddhist. Ashok’s 12th Major edict gives an interesting peek into Indian mind in this regard, it is worth quoting in full here:

“The Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, honours all sects and both ascetics and laymen, with gifts and various forms of recognition. But the Beloved of the Gods does not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the advancement of the essential doctrine of all sects. This progress of the essential doctrine takes many forms, but its basis is the control of one’s speech, so as not to extoll one’s own sect or disparage another’s on unsuitable occasions, or at least to do so only mildly on certain occasions. On each occasion one should honour another man’s sect, for by doing so one increases the influence of one’s own sect and benefits that of the other man; while by doing otherwise one diminishes the influence of one’s own sect and harms the other man’s. Again, whosoever honours his own sect or disparages that of another man, wholly out of devotion to his own, with a view to showing it in a favourable light, harms his own sect even more seriously. Therefore, concord is to be commended, so that men may hear one another’s principles and obey them. This is the desire of the Beloved of the Gods, that all sects should be well-informed, and should teach that which is good, and that everywhere their adherents should be told, The Beloved of the Gods does not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the progress of the essential doctrine of all sects. Many are concerned with this matter – the officers of Dhamma, the women’s officers, the managers of the state farms, and other classes of officers. The result of this is the increased influence of one’s own sect and glory to Dhamma.”[2]

This is from an all-powerful emperor about 250 years before Christ was born, addressed to the general public as well as to the state officials. It may not be articulated in the exact terms as modern secularism quoted in the beginning, but comes as close to “a mode of political organization in which the state is neutral with reference to all established religions” as would have been possible at that time.

About openness and changes, yes, there is much resistance in changing practices in the society. There is also much injustice to sections of society and that is not giving way, often only changing form. But neither is it an absolutely ironclad rigidity. How the new age couples are changing Hindu marriage ceremony can be an example. I know at the least two couples personally who considered the practice of ‘kanyadan’ as demeaning to women and did not include that in their marriage. One couple used preamble of Constitution of India as ceremonial vow in their marriage. These changes have come about through secular ideals taught in the schools and colleges.  

Finally, there is no necessary dichotomy between emphasis on secular ideals and having one’s own religious or cultural identity. One can happily be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jain, a Boddh, a Sikh, a Christian or an atheist; and be true to secular ideals as far as public behaviour is concerned. One has to compromise only on the religious beliefs and practices which restrict others’ freedoms. And that in any case has to be accepted if one is not living in a theological state. Those who want to force precepts of their own religions on others have to be prevented from doing so, even if they don’t like it. This much is necessary under any kind of modern state today, and is a necessary condition for existence of multireligious societies. If the future citizens of India are to understand all this appropriate emphasis on secular ideals in the school education is absolutely a must.

******

[1] International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Second Edition (2008), Volume 7, p277-378.

[2] Romila Thapar, Asoka and the decline of the Mauryas, OUP, 1997, p255

5 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Education as Expansion of consciousness

May 3, 2016

Published in Deccan Herald, 3rd May 2016 http://www.deccanherald.com/content/544002/expansion-consciousness.html

Rohit Dhankar

“The child lives in a somewhat narrow world of personal contacts”, says John Dewey. He thinks that from this “narrow world”, the child has to be taken to a world which is “stretching back indefinitely in time, and extending outward indefinitely into space”. This, it seems to me, characterises the most important task of education.

We all begin our lives in a close and protective environment. Naturally, the child’s world is confined to direct experiences with the people and physical environment she is surrounded by. But life, even in that confined world of family, demands enormous expansion of consciousness (mind) as a child interacts with others. She is socialised in ways of behaviour, thought and feelings of her community. That helps her in connecting with others, in understanding their intentions, pains and hopes. In a way, she includes them in her own consciousness, they become a part of herself, and her consciousness expands.

While it is a great achievement for the child to have become a thinking being; her consciousness is still bound by that very cultural and physical environment. The very process of formation of mind also imprisons it.

That is why the most important role of education is to liberate the mind from here and now. This is a tricky endeavour though, as this liberty has to be achieved without alienating the mind from the community in which it was formed, for the most basic conceptual equipment is formed with the experiences gained in life as lived in that community.

Severing connection with that experience will render the conceptual equipment empty and useless. On the other hand, without loosening the connection, those conceptual structures will become unreceptive to anything beyond the pale of the community experience and will judge everything else with the narrow yardstick of that particular community.

Therefore, education becomes an endeavour of turning receptive to the ways of knowing, feeling, judging and doing of the humanity with intelligent analysis. That means learning to see oneself as part of the great mass of humanity and sharing in its destiny, while also expanding the imagination to construct human past as well as imagine its future. The vastness of the universe situates even the humanity in a much larger system and the full picture makes humanity a subject of critical assessment: How important is it? How sacrosanct are its ways? What future direction could/ should it take?

All this can be seen as liberating the mind from here and now. Liberation, in this sense, is not disconnection; it is simply growing beyond. The 3 most noisily preached ideals of education today all militate against this expansion of consciousness. They are more pronounced in the higher education, but also shape the school education significantly.

One of these ideals looks at education as preparing cannon fodder for capitalist economy. Riding on the economic aspirations of people, it almost exclusively emphasises marketable skills. Even when it uses lofty terms like “global citizen”, it only means being able to render services to market anywhere on the globe; not in the sense of feeling human pain caused by these market forces.

This not only disconnects the person from his/her formative roots but also makes her mechanical and self-centred to the level where rather than expanding the self, she can see all others only through the prism of self-interest.

Another ideal starts with a critical look at the society and offers a lot of hope in the beginning. But soon, this approach becomes so obsessed with identity politics that it focusses exclusively on one’s own identity; be that Dalit or woman or majority or minority. This particular affliction manifests itself most devastatingly at the university level, and becomes so completely obsessed with injustices done to one community that the whole humanity and all human actions are seen only through that lens. Rest of the humanity is not included in the consciousness, but is forcefully excluded by reducing it into an object of judgment.

Imagined identity

The third ideal, more forceful in last 2-3 years, is that of disregarding the formative community experiences to emphasise only one kind of consciousness that is based on a pruned and imagined Indian culture. Thus violating both the principles of keeping the connection with the formative stage as well as expansion. It considers the first as an aberration; while confining the self to include only one narrowly defined cultural and national ideal forcefully called Indian.

All three broad ideals are out to confine the mind to their own rigidly defined boundaries. They all, while having some grain of positive development, finally want to shape the self into a particular mould, which is incapable of encompassing the whole of humanity with its pain and pleasures, with its perils and achievements, with its depths of depravity and peaks of exalted achievements.

We need to re-emphasise the educational ideal that is capable of feeling the pain of particular sections of humanity without rejecting the rest of it. Which is capable of contributing to the economic machine that sustains the human life, without becoming just a cog in it. Which is capable of deriving nourishment from our limited experiences while subjecting them to values that cherish all humanity.

Often, though, this kind of thought is challenged with the question: all that if fine, but what is the way? The problem is that there is no settled prescription which can combat these fragmentary tendencies. One necessary ingredient of any possible solution, however, would be thinking with clarity and sensitivity towards whole humanity, acting with commitment and connecting with others in their struggles for justice. If we can manage that, some solution should emerge in due course of time.

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Skill-Based Curriculum: Will it help students?

December 17, 2015

In DECCAN HERALD: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/517938/will-help-students.html

Rohit Dhankar

Skills based curriculum seems to be the current silver bullet for curing educational ills of the country. The Ministry of Human Resource Development discussion note on new education policy wants to “revamp … our education system to make skill development an integral part of the curriculum at all stages.”

Indian education is too often criticised for its ‘theoretical’ orientation and ignoring usable skills. This is supposed to be the main reason why it churns out supposed to be ‘unemployable’ school and college graduates. These claims as usually understood in their simplistic term may not be true; still, emphasis on ‘usable skills’ in education without compromising academic development should be welcome.

However, when one looks at the use of this term ‘skill’ in the current educational discussions several questions arise. What kind of skills are really usable in real life? How can they be taught? And more importantly: what does the term “skill” really mean? Some examples of the use of term skill (in current discussions) will be in order here: Life skills; basic language and numeracy skills; cognitive skills; self-employment skills; problem solving, critical thinking and reasoning skills; functional skills.

What does the term skill mean in all these cases? Is there really a common meaning of the term here? Can they be taught in the same manner across these domains? These questions become crucial when one starts developing a curriculum, teaching material, pedagogy and assessment. Just a rough skill-talk may sound very appealing in a vague debate, but will not help us develop any good educational programme.

Traditionally, the term skill was used for dexterities that could be taught directly through practice, involved but not much of knowledge and understanding, and which were of limited generalisability. For example, swimming. It could be taught directly by practice; does not necessarily need understanding of fluid dynamics. Its applicability remains very close to the situations in which it is learnt. Today, this is considered a ‘narrow’ use of the term skill; and a wider use encompasses all the things that are listed above. And therein lie a host of curricular and pedagogical problems. Just to hint at one of these problems let’s take three examples of skills: driving (it could be one of the self-employment skills), critical thinking and empathy.

Driving is a paradigmatic example of skill. It is directly teachable, little knowledge (of how the engine functions) is necessary and is not transferable; a car driver does not become a pilot automatically. Therefore, a short course could easily be designed and successfully implemented for driving. All you have to do is give sufficient practice and tell the traffic rules. And you have a thriving school of driving.

Now, think of critical thinking. A person to be a critical thinker, say in mathematics, necessarily needs a substantial amount of mathematical knowledge base. S/he needs an understanding of how mathematical reasoning works: deductive logic based on axioms and definitions, mainly. S/he needs to do a lot of mathematics, understand the principles of logic, for example inference; and has to internalise the logical relationships between abstract concepts. But it cannot be taught just by solving mathematical problems.

It requires much imagination, an attitude to stick with the logic and demanding proofs. It is highly generalizable but only on mathematical models. A critical thinker in mathematics is not necessarily a critical thinker in, say history. In history, one needs a lot of insight into interpretation of the available facts; and deductive logic works but only as a limited basis. One cannot have a short course in critical thinking (either in mathematics or in history) then; it develops in the process of acquiring a vast amount of human knowledge.

How to teach empathy

Third, let’s take empathy. It’s not even a skill. It is a feeling towards another sensitive being (humans and animals). It is a capability to feel the others’ pain. We do not know how to teach it. Though we do have some idea that a person himself treated with sensitivity and in close emotional relationships with other human beings is likely to be more empathetic to others compared to one who has not experienced such emotional bonding. We also know that a developed moral sense is likely to enhance one’s empathy with others. But there is no guarantee. And a course to teach empathy is impossible. Calling it a skill is ridiculous.

Now, when one talks of emphasising ‘capability for action’ in a curriculum; that may be a sensible thing to do. But when one treats all those capabilities as ‘skills’ education is likely to slide on the wrong path. Once you call something a skill, you get into the mode of thinking that it could be taught like driving. Which is not the case. Therefore, by over emphasising skills in school education you can make students into plumbers, drivers, computer jobbers, and hospitality workers; but not into good engineers, doctors, historians, mathematicians and scientists. And a country requires both to function well.

The skill talk in school curriculum, then, may be useful up to a certain extent, but may mislead our education if disproportionately emphasised.

A simple statistical indicator of this over emphasis on skills is that the word “skill” occurs in the MHRD discussion note for school education 25 times, “knowledge” seven times and “understanding” zero times! A close analysis of the themes and questions leaves no doubt that the overwhelming emphasis is on narrow skills; and where values and knowledge are mentioned they are more in a supportive role; while for good education you need to have it the other way round. Now, we can attempt at the least one of the questions asked in the themes document: Would skill based education help students to be employable? May be, at the lower end of the social and economic spectrum; but at a huge future cost to the student and to the nation.

******

6 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

For a rational education debate…

July 7, 2015

Published in THE HINDU, ON 7th July 2015

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-a-rational-education-debate/article7393209.ece

Rohit Dhankar

Maharashtra’s recent decision to conduct a survey of what it calls “non-school going children” seems to have created a storm. Political parties are now up in arms calling it an anti-minority move and Muslim leaders in particular have declared their resolve to fight the decision. Some intellectuals have even called the step as “insensitive” and one that will only raise the suspicions of the minorities. In the midst of this, there are claims being made that the education being imparted in madrasas has helped (and is helping) minority students pass even difficult tests such as the civil service examinations. But the point is that this entire debate is being conducted in an environment charged with emotion and irrelevant facts. In general, these arguments, if allowed to flourish, are likely to harm the cause of education in the country.

What is the issue all about? News reports of July 3-4 say that the Principal Secretary of the Minority Affairs Department sent a letter to the Principal Secretary, School Education, saying that students in madrasas and Vedic institutions which do not teach mathematics, social science, science and English should be considered as “non-school going”.

National system of education

After Independence, India has struggled to craft a National System of Education (NSE). The D.S. Kothari Commission recommended such a system and efforts to realise this goal have been on ever since the National Policy on Education 1968 or NPE 68 was in force. NPE expresses a commitment to realise this goal and every single national curriculum framework since 1975 has declared that one of the important concerns of the National Curriculum Framework is to realise the NSE. NPE 1986 states: “[T]he concept of a National System of Education implies that, up to a given level, all students, irrespective of caste, creed, location or sex, have access to comparable quality” of education. This is the commitment to equal opportunity in education. In order to meet this commitment, the NSE must be in a position to compare standards across the country.

Important features

The country has been struggling to establish the ‘10+2’ structure of education in all States. Without a uniform structure, there can be no idea of standards of achievement that can be worked out for India. Without setting such standards, a comparison of quality cannot be established. Therefore, the goals of equal opportunity for education become vacuous. However, in regard to the madrasa debate this is not the most important issue.

NPE 86 states that the NSE “will be based on a national curricular framework which contains a common core along with other components that are flexible”. Also, “the common core will include the history of India’s freedom movement, the constitutional obligations and other content essential to nurture national identity.” Further, this core “will be designed to promote values such as India’s common cultural heritage, egalitarianism, democracy and secularism, equality of the sexes, protection of the environment, removal of social barriers, observance of the small family norm and inculcation of the scientific temper.” It is not optional and has to be part of all State curricula and syllabi.

Another feature of NSE that emerges out of the commitment to this core is the “common scheme of studies”. This scheme — though described in somewhat variant terms — remains more or less the same as outlined in the “National Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary Education—A framework” or NCF 1988. The three subjects that remain common at the primary level in all States are language (mother tongue/regional), mathematics and environmental studies. At the upper primary and lower secondary levels, the common subjects are three languages, usually regional, Hindi and English, and in the Hindi-speaking areas, Hindi, another Indian language and English. There is also mathematics, social studies — which includes history, geography and civics or political science — and science. Art education, work experience and health and physical education are also part of the curriculum at the upper primary and lower secondary levels. But there is variance in them across States.

Right to Education Act 2009

What is important to note here is that there is supposed to be a common core curriculum across the nation, and there is a high degree of uniformity in the scheme of studies at the elementary level. These two aspects emerged from a felt need for a NSE and articulated in the NPE 1986.

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE), has some stipulations for curriculum and what will be considered “completion of elementary education” — which should be legally free and compulsory.

The RTE, in Section 29(1), stipulates: “[T]he curriculum … for elementary education shall be laid down by an academic authority to be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification.” All the State governments have already notified their own State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) as the “academic authority” that will lay down the curriculum. Maharashtra also has a curriculum specified by its SCERT, which as per the RTE is its official curriculum.

‘Studying a subject’

According to RTE, the State government is duty bound to make provisions for every child to complete elementary education according to the norms of the prescribed curriculum. If the SCERT in Maharashtra has mathematics, science, social studies and three languages in its curriculum, then it becomes imperative for it to see to it that every child studies all these subjects. Otherwise, the condition of completion of elementary education cannot be met. Therefore, if the State government is trying to identify children who are not getting educated, as per RTE, it has to include those children who are not studying all these subjects, be they in a madrasa, Vedic pathshala or any other religious or community school. If there are madrasas which do not teach one of these subjects, then the government cannot consider — as per RTE — these children to be “school going children”; technically, it has to declare them as “non-school going”. It does not matter whether many of them go on to universities or “crack civil service examinations” or any other competitive examinations. The purpose of establishing a national system of education is to not only prepare students for a livelihood and jobs, but also to make all children aware of the national movement for freedom, nurture a national identity, inculcate a scientific temper, and so on. In propagating these aims, mathematics, science and social studies are seen as necessary. However, if the madrasas are teaching all the subjects mentioned earlier along with religious studies, the State has to consider children studying there as “school going”. But that does not seem to be the case. The government letter seems to be defining “non-school going” as meaning only those children who do not study one or other of these subjects. Another point to keep in mind is that “studying a subject” here means “studying the government prescribed syllabus in that subject”. For example, if the children study the history of Europe or Africa, or Islam but do not study the history of India and the freedom movement, they cannot be considered as completing the prescribed curriculum.

Some news reports mention that Bihar and Uttar Pradesh recognise madrasas as schools, which is perfectly fine if the madrasas are teaching all the subjects prescribed by their State curricula. But if they are not and are still recognised as schools, and the children studying there are considered as school-going children completing their elementary education, then these States are guilty of dereliction of duty and are flouting the norms of NPE 86, NCF 2005 and RTE. I am not a lawyer, but I think that they are liable for legal action under RTE.

Harm to national consensus

The project of developing a national system of education is at least a 100-year-old one, though it took concrete shape only after Independence. The idea was debated by leaders of the freedom movement by the beginning of the 20th century. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Sri Aurobindo, Annie Besant, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and many others saw the ills of the system of colonial education and had their own ideals of national education. But many began to recognise that these ideals of education could not become a national system of education. In a systematic analysis, Lala Lajpat Rai rejected all the ideas mentioned earlier as being unworthy of national education status as he felt it would be sectarian. He recommended nonsectarian secular education in his book, The Problem of National Education in India , which was published in 1920. Tagore and Gandhiji wanted a system of education without any sectarian element. The Zakir Hussain Committee Report on Basic National Education articulated an ideal of citizenship that was strongly democratic.

After Independence, the University Education Commission 1950, the Secondary Education Commission 1952, and the Education Commission 1964 were all aware of the need for a national system of education. But education was a state subject in all its aspects including structure, curriculum and pedagogy. Therefore, the national system was more of a cherished ideal than a reality. Only after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 did it really become possible to develop a national system of education. The characteristics of the ‘10+2’ structure of school education mentioned earlier, a common core of the curriculum and a more or less common scheme of studies emerged after that. It has taken a lot of hard work to achieve this state. The work is still unfinished as we still do not have commonly accepted standards of achievement. Also, we still do not have the ‘5+3+2’ structure of the first 10 years of education as some States have four years of primary education. But because of the common core of the curriculum and common scheme of studies we can now think of common achievement standards.

This kind of debate will dismantle that hard-earned consensus in structure and curriculum, thereby making equal opportunity impossible as there will be no criteria for judging equality or the lack of it. In any case, RTE is not being implemented with serious commitment in the country. If attempts like identifying “non-school going children”, as per its norms, are embroiled in unjustified controversies, political correctness will further demotivate governments from implementing whatever little is being attempted.

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Examination System: In dire need of reform

January 5, 2015

Rohit Dhankar, Jan 05, 2015, Deccan Herald

The Zakir Hussain Committee Report (1939) on basic education rightly saw examination system as “a curse to education”. The Commission on Secondary Education (1952) spelled the curse out by pointing out that it dominates education in every aspect from content to teaching and that it becomes the sole motivation for learning.

Today, there is near unanimity that the examination system is in dire need of reform. Therefore, the Right to Education Act (RTE) is justified in emphasising continuous and comprehensive evaluation (CCE). However, all efforts to change the examination system almost always fail. One wonders why this exam system bounces back every time one tries to reform it. Obviously, there are many reasons. This article briefly hints at one, perhaps the most important, of them.

Examinations and the factory model of schooling

The structure of modern school, brought to India by colonial masters in curriculum, teaching and examination, assumes that knowledge can be organised into discrete packages, each to be mastered independently. Therefore, learning can be organised into grades, and the content of learning in each grade can be separated into subjects like language, mathematics and environmental studies without emphasising interconnections.

The curriculum, therefore, loses its aim of holistic growth and becomes a bag of more or less unrelated units. Once the curriculum is fragmented, the teaching and testing follow suit. Therefore, periodic checks on how much of each of these independent units is memorised becomes the most efficient way of evaluation. This is the birth of an examination system most suitable for a factory model of school. The models of the school and examination support and give life to each other, and are highly management friendly and authoritarian.

The CCE as a possible alternative

What is demanded in CCE is ‘continuity’ and ‘comprehensiveness’ in assessment of learning. Discrete periodic events—however frequent—do not constitute continuity, unless one creates a sham misleading definition. One does not require much analysis to realise that the continuity in evaluation can be achieved only if the teaching itself becomes a process of evaluation for the child as well as for the teacher, and includes an ongoing sensitive response to the child’s learning difficulties and achievements. This is possible; but requires individual attention to each child. Therefore, the teacher needs to know each child, be in a position to make mental note of their learning behaviour in the classroom, needs to know their difficulties and successes individually, and to keep a reliable record of her classroom teaching every day. This, in turn, demands a high teacher pupil ratio, and institutional time for the teacher to plan, prepare and maintain notes. The system recognises none of these demands of CCE or not to the extent it should.

The second aspect in CCE is comprehensiveness, which demands attention not only to the particular concepts being taught, but to situate them in curriculum of the subject, and connect with what is being learnt in all other subjects as well as to the child’s general problem solving behaviour. The teaching, therefore, becomes a highly reflective activity. In addition to scholastic learning, comprehensiveness also demands attention to the child’s attitudes and dispositions. That further increases the demand for time and hard work.

The purpose

The central purpose of CCE is to facilitate better learning for the child. Three-fold variations in any class room can be easily understood: One, the children are likely to learn with different paces. Two, are likely to have different conceptualisations of what is being taught during the process of learning; for example, in their ways of understanding multiplication or how seasons change.

Their paths to achieve a common understanding are likely to differ substantially. Three, children come to class with different levels of preparedness to learn and interest in different subjects. Therefore, the same child may learn faster in one subject while may be slow in another. A suitable pedagogy for CCE has to facilitate learning in all these situations.

Little choice

On the other hand, the system demands that all children in a class complete the curriculum by the end of the session. This leaves very little choice for the teacher but to teach the whole class in a uniform manner. In order to complete, say, the upper primary curriculum in three years the teachers and children need an enormous amount of freedom to plan their work and execute it. The authoritarian system does not allow that.

To take an example, the understanding of child’s knowledge in CCE has to be progressive meaning making which becomes increasingly consistent internally as well as with accepted human knowledge at a given historical juncture. In this understanding, if the child is becoming progressively aware of her own ideas and tries to create coherence in them, it should be considered very good progress. But the year-wise packaged curriculum emphasises conformity, memorisation and reproduction on demand. These two attitudes to knowledge and learning contradict each other. As a result the teaching becomes geared to examination and the intellectually organic progress has to be abandoned.

It is clear, therefore, that the CCE can succeed only if we make the system flexible, change the notion of child’s knowledge, formulate the curriculum as a learning continuum and restructure the school.

Surprising we continuously miss the point that the prevailing examination system is a creature of the structure of school and curriculum; and cannot be reformed without dismantling the authoritarian school. If we still lack the courage to question this structure, CCE will fail; or it will metamorphose into something very akin to the existing examination system; which will serve no good purpose than to kill one more excellent idea in education.

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

« Previous Entries