Schools follow many practices that have been made redundant. One reason for this is that even if the school administrators are aware of practices that have become irrelevant, they cannot do much since the syllabus or assessment system doesn’t change in tandem. But awareness might help in at least spending less time in learning useless practices!

 

 

 

Most languages do not have cursive forms of script. At one point in time, when writing meant writing on a paper with a pen and not with a keyboard on a PC, the transition from working with printed characters to using cursive script represented a step towards full English literacy. This is no longer the case.

 

Now no one writes in cursive form even on paper. Computers may have cursive fonts but...have you ever used them? Books are not written in cursive form. Nor are newspapers and magazines.

 

So why are we forcing children to learn cursive writing?

 

In fact, not practicing cursive writing might help the children read faster. You can get the children to understand better by printing rather than using cursive script when writing on a blackboard, or when giving students written comments on their work. So if the next time you find a child struggling with cursive script, just don’t bother! There is absolutely no need for concern.

 

 

Most schools have classes to deal with either culture or morals or both. Teachers tell children that they should be honest, humble, obedient to parents or elders, etc…without explaining why.

 

Take "humility". The so called good quality poses a number of problems. Is it within one’s powers to feel humble? For example, how can someone, who is demonstrably superior in every way to his peers, feel humble in their presence? It is not his powers! He may hide his pride but that is not humility. If anything, humility is the flip-side of pride. The more aware you are about your humility, the more proud you are likely to be! Then, can you be humble, without being aware of it? 

 

Consider honesty. We tell children that honesty is the best policy. But never tell them why. How does being honest gel with self-interest (to achieve name, fame, money, etc) which is at the core of human actions? What if the trade-off is between being nice to someone or being honest and hurting a person very badly?

 

Ok, if we backtrack a bit and say that “honest is the best policy…most of the times”, on what yardstick should one decide when it is and when it is not the best policy? There are no easy answers here. 

 

That is precisely the trouble. Moral and culture teachers make the themes sound so simplistic when in fact, the themes are very complex and much of them in grey territory and cannot be seen in black and white.

 

Whatever message you are delivering in moral and culture classes, you will never know what message the children are taking home. In fact, if you try to impose values and behaviour without explaining why it is in their self-interest to follow them, they may not think much of you! 

 

You could try this: practice some of the values that you are preaching and manage to be seen as ‘successful’ in life in the eyes of the children. Then the chances are that your students may accept some of your ideas as valid. Remember, this works only over time and not in one class.

 

Don't get us wrong. The idea here is not to deride values that help human beings live together happily. But these values need to be explained in vastly different, acceptable ways. Else, it is a waste of time. 

 

 

 

Many children in Indian schools learn about the virtually rainless Atacama desert in South America without knowing the soil type in their cities, towns or the names of rivers in their district or state. The focus is typically on packing geography-related information in children’s minds rather than creating an interest in geography, which can happen only when children observe and experience geographical phenomena and conditions around them. Not in far corners of Mongolia or Chile, which most of them will never ever visit.

 

Ideally, geographical knowledge should expand from the place where the subject is being taught - geography of the school’s location, town or city, district, state, country … and so on. Field trips will enhance the learning and will possibly help create and sustain interest. It may be as simple as getting children to observe gangs among local street dogs or understand the smell of the earth after first rains. This is the way you can create responsible citizens, the ultimate objective of teaching geography!

 

Most schools in India teach children that there are four seasons. In many parts of India, four seasons don't exist. At the same time, besides summer and possibly winter, there could be a very clear monsoon spell. So why teach children that there are four seasons, which is the not the case here? Instead, why not get them to learn the differences between north east and south west monsoons and which parts get rains when? And how recent research proves that successive monsoon failure ended the Indus Valley Civilization?

 

Sure, all this can be complemented with audiovisual programmes on places that the children are unlikely to visit. For example, a documentary on orangutans in Indonesia by National Geographic channel will enhance learning. But that is complementary and not core. 

 

These are just samples of irrelevance. There might be many more across subjects. You are welcome to write to us or dispute our opinions at support@nimblekits.com.