Read on Twitter
Dissecting Dr AH Nayyar’s dissection of the SNC @Shafqat_Mahmood @MariamChughtai @TenzilaMazhar @javedhassan @itacec1
The author falsely gives the impression in para 3 that SNC requires instruction in English. Nowhere is there a requirement to do so, in fact a comprehensive debate was done on language of instruction and it leaves the options open to cater for the diversity in mother tongues.
There is also an option to use the hybrid method of including English terms for example taqseem (division) in the text so that they are not completely alien for children studying in Urdu or Sindhi for when they transition to English text.
Can any responsible academic refute the need to update the 2006 curriculum? The Federal ministry has a policy mandate to work with the provinces to build national consensus on policy matters. Should they not have done so?
The article also falsely claims that govt is not hiring teachers for ICT schools because of funds. Teacher recruitment processes have been initiated since last year, court matters and litigations have hindered the process
In fact to address the shortage a PSDP scheme has been approved to introduce education fellows for two years from the best universities catering to the need of improving teaching of science and mathematics in schools starting this FY
The author addresses the need to improve Textbooks which do require a curriculum —- hence a need to take the first step, the SNC. Model books on the new curriculum will be prepared and open sourced for all if they wish to use them
It’s disappointing that Dr AHN calls a massive consultation to update curriculum “tinkering”. For the 1st time private&public sector experts, religious scholars, educationists & influencers like Shahnaz Wazir, Javaid Jabbar, TCF, LUMS, Shahzad Roy & many others added their voice
The author forgets to give examples of countries like Japan, Korea, England, France, Singapore, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Netherlands and many others that do have a national curriculum. Pakistan is not the only country desirous of doing so
The author also stresses that most of the benchmarks remain the same as 2006 curriculum. Of course they would, the need to teach basics of math, grammar and science concepts remains same. He does not fully elaborate how & what is diff which would have been academically useful
He says that SNC will bring down level of private schools? A strange assumption over broad SLOs? Cambridge Intl was asked to review SNC in an advisory exercise, the report indicated 62% & 64% match in Math and English, less so in sci but the diff is more in structure not quality
There is an assumption that there is no plan to do exam reforms? Why? Which line in the SNC curriculum made him say this?
He falsely alleges that SNC violates the rights of Non-Muslims by prescribing lessons in Urdu and Eng that are part of Isl. This is completely false, nowhere is this a requirement in SNC of Urdu or English subjects or GN. He should provide a written quote from SNC as proof
He falsely alleged that SNC visualises providing massive employment to Madrassas grads! A complete distortion of the sentence in the islamiat curriculum that requires the services of a good qari or audio of a good qari to teach nazira
Also fail to understand the fear of a competent eligible candidate who may come from a Madrassa. This fear is enough to justify the need for equity based education reforms. (Also we may have more of a need to fear some foreign qualified English speaking elite
)
)
The maths done to indicate hiring of 2 madrasah-certified persons for all public and private schools is hilariously incorrect and the authors imagination, therefore does not merit a response
Criticism is very important for any reform process but it should be based on facts and not wild imaginations and authors confusion regarding SNC and a completely separate project of Madrassa reforms
Please remember that we need to own all children of Pakistan where ever they study. It is imp to demand from the govt holistic reforms for exams,teachers, textbooks, but belittling a good effort and spreading falsehoods may not be the best way to go about it.
