FIRST Principles" (August 18) touches on scores of issues but I'll focus on curriculum and what Prof. Anwarul Huque describes as" adherence to universal child-friendly pedagogic treatments" and "real school working days." These, I felt, graduated beyond the realm of the rhetoric.
Let me begin with some of Prof. Huque's unfounded claims. Many toss around expressions such as "child-friendly" and "child-centred," assuming that the meanings were obvious. Huque suggests that "child-friendly pedagogic treatments" are "universal."
None of the South Asian countries, other than Sri Lanka and Maldives, and most developing countries, don't have child-friendly, let alone, child-centred schools.
The former is popularised by Unicef emphasis on safety, while the latter refers to a comprehensive education system, highlighting learning environment, classroom resources, teaching, and assessment.
Prof. Huque claims that "a primary school teacher, irrespective of the subjects s/he studied, is required to teach all the 11 primary education (PE) subjects up to grade 8." As there are only 5,000 secondary schools with PE sections, all other primary schools, understandably, are primary up to grade five.
It stands to reason, therefore, that the teachers in these schools could not teach up to grade 8. Secondly, I had thought that primary schools had subject-based teachers because the NCTB believed that all subjects needed dedicated teachers.
It is possible, however, that partly because there are fewer teachers than prescribed and partly owing to teacher absenteeism, they are often required to cover for other teachers.
The author's favourite areas seem to be teacher profile, curriculum and real working days. It is not clear what the author means by teacher profile. In advanced countries, teachers are required to qualify for teaching through teacher training, which includes years of teaching practice in real classrooms.
As a result, trainees can learn classroom transactions hands-on. In most of these countries, the primary teacher is the class teacher who facilitates the full primary curriculum, which means there are usually no subject teachers; therefore, no subject- based periods.
This means teachers are expected to take responsibility for acquisition of the full range of defined competencies by each learner. My working experience in 700 full primary schools in Bangladesh, which came to be widely acknowledged as "one of the two best primary education systems in the developing world," suggests that even if the teachers had only HSC qualification, it would have been possible to train them through hands-on experience.
Clearly, graduates with science background would potentially be more effective as teachers than others, especially in the upper primary.
Prof. Huque explains." Though the curriculum is the prime mover of an education system, especially at the primary level, teachers are the providers of the basic foundation for subsequent stages of education. "
In reality, curriculum is a key element for high quality education. In itself it does not ensure learning, and learning, clearly, is the rationale for schooling. The national curriculum of Bangladesh is mainly based on the British curriculum, except for the first 16 or so, but this has not led to quality education. The story is the same for most parts of South Asia.
At the primary level, curricular objectives are development in reading, writing, math, science and technology, and life skills. In high quality education, competence in reading means the ability to read fluently and independently with comprehension, in both Bangla and English.
Similarly, writing is the ability to express oneself, and communicate, in writing in both languages. Competence in math involves understanding the number system and place value, calculations, and solving problems involving shapes, space, position and movement; lengths, mass, capacity and time.
In science and technology this would mean the ability to observe, analyse, experiment, record and present information and facts, as well as acquiring computer skills.
Finally, life skill refers to the ability to actively participate, perform, listen, analyse, question, protect and resolve issues within a context.
The objectives in themselves, however, do not ensure learning. Nor can they be provided or transmitted by a teacher. In conventional schools this might be the case because teaching and learning are rote based.
The textbooks and the system of assessment, i.e. examination, reinforce rote learning. Textbooks, by setting questions at the end of each chapter, encourage learners to memorise answers. The system of examination does this by assessing basically the ability of the learner to recall from memory. The system does not allow assessment of what the learner knows and is able to do!
Training hands-on in a classroom environment that ensures learning by doing, and engaging each child actively in a purposeful activity every minute, allows a teacher to recreate the learning environment in her/his own classroom and facilitate learning.
At the primary level, a teacher does not teach, s/he facilitates because children mostly learn naturally. The teacher facilitates learning to ensure that the activities in the classroom allow acquisition of the desired competencies. The challenge is to create the learning environment inside the classroom and encourage children to engage themselves actively.
At the primary level, therefore, teaching and learning must essentially be competency based within the framework of specific disciplines or subjects. Thus, there is no contradiction between a competency based and a subject based curriculum. Competencies are the fundamentals that allow a learner to dig into a subject.
Bangla and English are subjects, but it is the competency in reading and writing, as explained above, that creates opportunity for the learner to enjoy the subjects.
As for Multiple Ways of Teaching Learning (MWTL) promoted through the PEDP I/IDEAL project, it failed for the same reasons that PEDP II is failing. Neither of the two national projects envisaged a classroom complete with the resources, the activities, the teaching learning and assessment.
Understandably, the implementers failed to create what they had not seen. As a result, the teachers continued to be trained in the conventional way (C-in-Ed), including practice teaching in the conventional "demonstration schools" attached to the PTIs. The result was inevitable.
As for what the author calls "real annual school working days" being only about 100, he has a point, except that his assumption that all teachers are engaged in "non-PE functions" at the same time, and the schools effectively remained closed during these periods is wrong and misleading.

Dr. F.R. Mahmood Hasan is an educator.