Education Portal for Students in India

In 2009, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act mandated all States / UTs to implement the National Curriculum Framework.
View complete answer

When was Ncfte established?

Page 2 – You are not logged in. Your will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you or, your edits will be attributed to a username, among, Content that will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through, Retrieved from “” : National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education
View complete answer

When was NCF 2005 implemented in India?

The National Curriculum Framework 2005 (NCF 2005) is the fourth National Curriculum Framework published in 2005 by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in India, Its predecessors were published in 1975, 1988, 2000. The NCF 2005 serves as a guideline for syllabus, textbooks, and teaching practices for the schools in India.

The NCF 2005 has based its policies on previous government reports on education, such as Learning Without Burden and National Policy of Education 1986–1992, and focus group discussion. After multiple deliberations 21 National Focus Group Position Papers have been published to provide inputs for NCF 2005.

NCF 2005 and its offshoot textbooks have come under different forms of reviews in the press. Its draft document was criticized by the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). In February 2008, Krishna Kumar, then the director of NCERT, also discussed the challenges faced by the document in an interview.

The subjects of NCF 2005 include all educational institutions in India. A number of its recommendations, for example, focus on rural schools. The syllabus and textbooks based on it are being used by all the CBSE schools and multiple state schools. NCF 2005 has been translated into 22 languages and has influenced the syllabus in 17 states.

The NCERT provided a grant of ₹10,00,000 to all states to promote NCF in their local language and to compare its current syllabus with the syllabus proposed, so that a plan for future reforms could be made. This exercise is being executed with the support of State Councils for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET).

On 21 September 2021, the Union Education Ministry formed a 12-member committee to develop new curriculums for School, early child, teacher and adult education. This panel tasked with developing 4 national curriculum frameworks (NCFs) will be headed by NEP-2020 drafting committee chairperson and Former ISRO chairman (1994-2003) Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan.K.

Kasturirangan awarded three civilian awards Padma Shri in 1982, Padma Bhushan in 1992 and Padma Vibhushan in 2000.
View complete answer

What is the National Curriculum Framework?

WHAT IS THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK (NCF)? The NCF is the foundation for curricular development. It informs the enhancement and development of syllabus materials, teacher guides, textbooks, learning materials, and wider teaching resources (including technical and scientific resources).
View complete answer

When was the last NCF formed?

In September 2021, the Union Ministry of Education constituted a 12-member national steering committee to develop a new National Curriculum Framework (NCF) in line with the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP).
View complete answer

What is the first National Curriculum Framework?

As NCERT had been established in the year 1961 with one of the major mandates of developing curricular material in the area of school education, therefore, it had developed it first curriculum framework brought out in 1975, titled ‘ The Curriculum for the Ten year of School Education – A framework in, 1975 ‘ and provided
View complete answer

In which year was curriculum 2005 implemented?

Perspectives of teachers on the implementation of Life Orientation in Grades R–11 from selected Western Cape schools Karel van Deventer Karel van Deventer is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sport Science, Faculty of Education, Stellenbosch. He is a widely published researcher with a research emphasis on movement education E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Educational transformation in South Africa not only brought about Outcomes- based Education and Curriculum 2005 but also a new Learning Area/Subject, called Life Orientation (LO). A major challenge for LO as a new Learning Area/Subject is the preconceptions that exist about it, and the fact that the attitude of school principals is not conducive to the successful implementation of LO. Against this background it was deemed necessary to investigate teachers’ perspectives regarding the implementation of LO in Grades R to 11. For the survey 248 schools (124 primary, 124 secondary) were randomly selected, of which 157 returned questionnaires. Summary statistics were done using frequency tables and histograms. Comparisons of ordinal variables were performed using one-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis non- parametric test. For the majority of the schools the learning outcomes, related to the movement component of LO in the General and Further Education and Training bands, are presented. The fact that most of the schools do not have qualified Physical Education teachers holds certain implications for the status of LO in general and more specifically for the growth and development of the learners. To address this situation it is recommended that in-service and pre- service education and training of teachers commences immediately and that Higher Education Institutions become more involved in different forms of training initiatives than currently the practice. Keywords: Curriculum 2005; Further Education and Training Band; General Education and Training Band; Life Orientation; National Curriculum Statement; outcomes-based education; physical education; teacher training; teachers’ perspectives. Introduction Curriculum 2005 (C2005) with its implementation in 1998 was regarded as the master plan to eradicate the inequalities of the apartheid education system. In 2000, C2005 was revised and is now referred to as the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) (Jansen, 1998; Manganyi, 2001; Harley & Wedekind 2004; Vambe, 2005). The NCS is an outcomes-based, integrated knowledge system based on a learner-centred pedagogy that has to improve the quality of education for all in South Africa (SA) (Jansen, 1998; Botha, 2002; Fiske & Ladd, 2004; Todd & Mason, 2005). However, the potential for Outcomes-based Education (OBE) to enhance learning in all South African schools, given the historical and situational constraints, is limited. Numerous schools in SA have been unsuccessful in implementing the concept of outcomes to drive the educational programmes and state resources have not been sufficient to bring all schools up to the standard that was enjoyed by former Model C schools prior to 1994 (Whitaker & Whitaker, 1995; Mathieson, 2001; Todd & Mason, 2005; Vambe, 2005). The main factors that hinder policy implementation in South African schools are the lack of management capacity and the scarcity of resources (Jansen, 1999; Botha, 2002; Fiske & Ladd, 2004; Prinsloo, 2007). Educational transformation not only brought about C2005 and OBE, but also a new Learning Area called Life Orientation (LO) in the General Education and Training (GET) Band (Grades R-9) and a new subject in the Further Education and Training (FET) Band (Grades 10-12). This new Learning Area/Subject is to equip learners with the skills, knowledge, attitudes and values (SKAV) to face life’s challenges in an informed, confident and responsible way (DoE, 1997; Jansen, 1998; Botha, 2002; DoE, 2002a; DoE, 2002b; Fiske & Ladd, 2004; Hendricks, 2004; Vambe, 2005; Christiaans, 2006). A major challenge for LO as a new Learning Area/Subject is the preconceptions that exist about the non-examinable status of its previous constituents, such as Guidance, Youth Preparedness, Religious Education and Physical Education (PE) (DoE, 2002b; Van Deventer, 2004; Rooth, 2005; DoE, 2008b). A major concern of Christiaans (2006) is that the attitude of school principals is not conducive to the successful implementation of LO. For example, it may be expected of a Guidance teacher to teach all aspects of LO or a PE teacher to offer the other aspects of LO that fall outside their realm of familiarity (Rooth, 2005:22). Irrespective of what the situation is, it seems that LO is taught by a broad spectrum of teachers that are not specialists in this field (Van Deventer, 2004; Rooth, 2005; Christiaans, 2006; Roux et al,, 2008). According to Christiaans (2006), insufficient support from the Department of Education (DoE) does not improve the situation. The fact that LO is taught by teachers that are not LO specialists is an important aspect, since the epistemology and skills of the teachers who teach a learning area/subject determine the status and practice of that learning area/subject (Talbot, 2001; Hardman, 2003; Rooth, 2005; Christiaans, 2006). The review committee for C2005 in 2000 noted that adequately prepared teachers who were motivated to teach and had the required support to do their work, form the basis of the successful implementation of an outcomes- based framework. The review committee found among other things that South African teachers were inadequately trained (DoE, 2000a). Botha (2002), Van Deventer (2004), Rooth (2005), Christiaans (2006), Prinsloo (2007), Roux et al, (2008) and Van Deventer and Van Niekerk (2008) came to the same conclusion as the review committee regarding inadequately trained LO teachers. Rooth (2005:237) purports that at a school where all teachers taught LO, pre-planned teaching packs were handed to teachers at the beginning of the year and irrespective of the learners’ needs or interactions in class, teachers taught in a paint-by-numbers way. Teachers will resent having to teach LO if they are not knowledgeable about the content. Therefore, specialists in LO are needed (Rooth, 2005; Van Deventer, 2007; Van Deventer & Van Niekerk, 2008). Rooth (2005:238) purports that: The danger is that if everybody teaches Life Orientation, nobody will teach it; it will be so integrated in other learning areas that it will be invisible. Although many misconceptions about LO exist, it does seem that teachers and learners attribute considerable significance to LO (Rooth, 2005; Christiaans, 2006; Van der Walt & De Klerk, 2006; Van Deventer & Van Niekerk, 2008). Rooth (2005:22) believes that: It would be a devastating loss of an educationally sound opportunity if Life Orientation could not fulfil its potential to make a vital contribution to learners’ successful living, learning and well-being. In the 21st century learners are faced with needs and challenges that offer both problems and possibilities. LO can address many of these needs and challenges that learners encounter (Hendricks, 2004; Rooth, 2005; Theron & Dalzell, 2006; Prinsloo, 2007). The significance of LO to the broader vision of education in SA is underscored by all the cardinal issues dealt with in LO (Rooth, 2005). According to the NCS (DoE, 2002b), the phrase LO contains what it intends to do and that is to guide and prepare learners for life and its possibilities. Furthermore, it equips learners for meaningful and successful living in a rapidly changing and transforming society. The focus of LO is life-in-society. The GET Band (Grades R-9) concerns itself with Health Promotion, Social Development, Personal Development, Physical Development and Movement and Orientation to the World of Work (DoE, 2002b). In the FET Band (Grades 10-12) the Learning Outcomes of LO are Personal Well-being, Citizenship Education, Recreation and Physical Well-being and Career and Career Choices (DoE, 2003a). Although the Learning Outcome Recreation and Physical Well-being is now known as Physical Education it does not mean that PE is now a fully-fledged subject in the FET Band. Physical Education is still a focus area of LO with the exception that 60 minutes a week should be allocated to PE on the school timetable in Grades 10-12 (DoE, 2008a). From the literature review it is clear that LO within the context of curriculum transition, coupled with the legacy of its constituents, is fragmented and struggling to define itself (Rooth, 2005; Van der Walt & De Klerk, 2006). Against this background it was deemed necessary to investigate the implementation of LO, not only because of an interest in PE, but also because LO as a Learning Area/Subject in the GET and FET band, respectively, is new. The fact that LO is a new Learning Area/Subject evokes a number of questions; not only the success of its implementation, but also its status amongst teachers? Aim of the research The main aim of the study was to determine the perspectives of LO teachers regarding the implementation of LO with specific reference to the Learning Outcome, Physical Development and Movement (PDM) in the GET Band, and the Learning Outcome, Physical Education (PE) in the FET Band in randomly selected primary and secondary schools in the Western Cape. The following secondary aims were addressed: o To determine teachers’ perspectives regarding certain LO curriculum issues in the GET and FET Bands. o To determine whether schools have qualified PE teachers to teach the Learning Outcomes, PDM and PE in the GET and FET Bands, respectively. o To determine whether the LO teachers have in-service training needs. o To determine whether the schools have sufficient and suitable facilities and equipment to present PDM and PE in the GET and FET Bands, respectively. Methodology Research design Quantitative and qualitative data captured by a questionnaire typify the research design as a survey. Sample A pilot study was conducted during 2006 to determine the content validity of the self-designed questionnaire used to capture the data in the current study. The feedback received after the pilot study was used to modify the questionnaire. Schools in the Western Cape (N = 248 ) were randomly selected from an address list provided by the Western Cape Education Department (WCED). The sample population consisted of LO teachers in the selected schools. These teachers were decided upon to complete the questionnaires as possibly they had a more hands-on reflection. Of the randomly selected schools (N = 248), 157 responded which is a response rate of 63%. A further analysis of the responses indicated that 95 primary teachers (n = 50 Foundation Phase ; n = 45 Intermediate Phase ) and 62 secondary teachers (n = 30 Senior Phase ; n = 32 FET) returned questionnaires. In the FET Band only Grades 10 and 11 were included in the sample because LO was introduced in Grade 10 in 2006, in Grade 11 in 2007 and only in 2008 in Grade 12. Questionnaire One questionnaire was used for the phases of the GET Band as well as for Grades 10 and 11. The only distinctions in the questionnaires were made where reference was made to a specific phase. The questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first related to demographic information which mostly focused on the school community. The main section of the questionnaire related to the curriculum in which various factors ranging from qualifications to the NCS were covered. The third section related to extra-mural activities with the focus on available facilities and extra-mural sporting activities presented at the schools. In the fourth section, teachers had to reflect on general issues related to major problems encountered with the implementation of LO. Statistical calculation Summary statistics were done using frequency tables and histograms. Cross tabulation and the Chi-square test were used to compare categorical data between the Foundation Phase (FP), Intermediate Phase (IP), and Senior Phase (SP) of the GET Band, as well as with Grades 10 and 11 of the FET Band. Comparisons of ordinal variables were done by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test. Bonferonni multiple testing corrections were used. Statsoft Statistica 8.0 was used to analyse the data (STATSOFT, 2007). The level of significance used throughout the study was p < 0.05. In the following sections, the data will be discussed as they relate to the FP, IP and SP, as well as Grades 10 and 11. Discussion of results Demographics of the study Although a random sample of primary and high schools was selected in the Western Cape, the majority of responses (n = 101) came from schools that primarily served the coloured community, followed by the white (n = 44) and black (n = 12) communities. Although the location of the schools was mainly urban (n = 92), a fair number of schools were located in rural (n = 65) settings. The main religious denomination found in the schools was Christianity (99%). The size of the schools (n = 81) fell mostly in the range of 500 to 999 learners in total. Curriculum information Life Orientation was presented as a Learning Area in the GET Band (Grades R-9) and as a Subject in the FET Band (Grades 10 and 11) in 96% of the schools. Ninety-nine percent of the LO teachers were of the opinion that they understood the principles of OBE. The results were compared to determine whether knowledge regarding the principles of OBE was obtained at departmental in-service training sessions or at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The researchers thought it necessary to determine who the role players were in the in-service education and training (INSET) of LO teachers and not the duration of the programmes or courses. As shown in Figure 1, it is clear that most LO teachers obtained their knowledge at departmental in-service training sessions when compared with Figure 2, No significant difference ( p = 0.61) was found between the LO teachers of the FP, IP and SP in the GET Band and the LO teachers in the FET Band. A significant difference ( p = 0.04) regarding training at HEIs was found between the LO teachers of the FP, IP, SP and the FET Band. In the FP and IP (primary schools) more LO teachers received INSET by HEIs than LO teachers in the SP and in the FET Band (secondary schools), respectively, ( Figure 2 ). By using the one-way ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test, comparisons of ordinal variables between the different groups (FP, IP, SP and Grades 10 and 11) were drawn. A significant difference ( p = 0.01) was found when comparing how LO teachers in the GET and FET Bands rated the importance of LO. Table 1 depicts the summary statistics as shown in Figure 4 on the importance that LO teachers attached to LO in the different phases of the GET Band as well as in Grades 10 and 11 in the FET Band. A significant difference ( p = 0.02) was found regarding how urban and rural LO teachers rated the importance of LO. Figure 5 indicates that rural LO teachers in all the phases of the GET Band and in Grades 10 and 11 (FET Band) attached more value to LO than their urban counterparts. In urban locations the FP and the IP attached more value to LO than the SP and FET teachers. The summary statistics on the importance attached to LO by urban and rural teachers in the different phases of the GET Band as well as in Grades 10 and 11 in the FET Band are shown in Table 2. In comparing the data between the LO teachers in the FP, IP and SP, as well as the LO teachers in the FET Band regarding whether the Learning Outcome PDM and/or PE was presented as part of LO, no significant difference ( p = 0.74) was found. The data indicated that 60% of the LO teachers who facilitated the Learning Outcome, PDM and/or PE in the GET and FET bands, respectively, were not qualified in PE. A comparison of the data between the FP, IP and SP in the GET Band and Grades 10 and 11 show a significant difference ( p = 0.00). According to the data 97% of the LO teachers reported that integration took place within LO in the GET and FET bands. Regarding integration between LO and other learning areas/subjects in Grades R-11, 93% of the LO teachers reported that it did take place. Regarding the assessment of the Learning Outcomes PDM and PE in the GET and FET bands, 58% of the LO teachers reported that they knew how to assess these outcomes. Although no significant difference ( p = 0.88) was found between the different phases of the GET and FET Bands, Figure 9 does indicate that LO teachers in the FET Band were to a certain degree uncertain in their response regarding their knowledge about assessment in PE. In an attempt to know more about the ability of LO teachers to assess the Learning Outcomes PDM and PE in the GET and FET bands, a question related to the development of learner portfolios, movement rubrics and movement matrixes was included in the questionnaire.

• To determine whether the LO teachers knew how to develop learner portfolios, comparisons were drawn between the FP, IP and SP of the GET Band, as well as the FET Band.
• In this regard 85% of the LO teachers indicated that they did not know how to develop learner portfolios.
• No significant difference ( p = 0.70) was found between the different groups.

Figure 10 contains the no responses of the LO teachers for the different phases in the GET and FET Bands. Regarding the development of movement rubrics, 64% of the LO teachers indicated that they did not know how to develop this assessment tool. In a comparison between the phases of the GET Band, and of the FET Band no significant difference ( p = 0.42) was found. Figure 11 contains the no responses of the LO teachers for the different phases in the GET and FET bands. Of the total population, 67% of the LO teachers indicated that they did not know how to develop movement matrixes. No significant difference ( p = 0.62) exists between the different phases of the GET Band as well as the FET Band. Figure 12 contains the no responses of the LO teachers for the different phases in the GET and FET bands. Interest in attending in-service training workshops to learn more about recent developments in LO seemed to be high, as 92% of the LO teachers reacted positively in this regard. No significant difference (p = 0.33) was found between the different phases in the GET Band as well as in the FET Band ( Figure 13 ). Extra-mural activities and facilities According to the data most of the LO teachers in the GET and FET Bands reported that facilities and equipment to present PDM and PE, respectively, were a problem. Figure 14 indicates the no responses of the LO teachers regarding available facilities and equipment to teach PDM and PE, respectively. However, most of the LO teachers in the FP, IP and SP of the GET Band as well as in Grades 10 and 11 indicated, amongst a number of other facilities, that open spaces and halls to present the Learning Outcomes PDM and PE of LO were available. See Figures 15 and 16, Conclusions Most of the schools that returned questionnaires served the coloured communities and therefore the findings of this study mostly apply to this category of schools. However, it may be that most of these conclusions could also apply to schools that serve other communities.

• It can be concluded that LO as a Learning Area/Subject is currently presented in the majority of schools in the sample and that most LO teachers believe that they understand the principles of OBE.
• It is clear that the WCED and not HEIs do most of the INSET to equip LO teachers regarding the principles of OBE whether it is structured as short courses or full programmes.

Regarding the importance of LO in general, many teachers rated it as important. However, a comparison between the FP, IP and SP in the GET Band and Grades 10 and 11 shows that LO teachers in the IP rated LO more important than Grade 10 and 11 teachers.

A further analysis indicated that SP and FET Band LO teachers in urban schools did not attach the same importance to LO as LO teachers in the FP and IP. In general, rural LO teachers attached more value to LO in the FP, IP and SP of the GET Band and in Grades 10 and 11. The LO teachers indicated that the Learning Outcome, PDM, was presented in Grades R to 9 in the majority of schools and that the same applies for the Learning Outcome, PE, in Grades 10 and 11.

The fact, that most schools did not have qualified LO teachers in PE, held certain implications for LO in general and more specifically for the growth and development of learners. Most of the LO teachers in the FP, IP and SP who presented PDM were not qualified PE teachers.

1. The same tendency regarding generalist teachers teaching LO was found by Van Deventer (2004), Rooth (2005), Christiaans (2006) and Roux et al, (2008).
2. Fortunately, in Grades 10 and 11 more teachers who presented PE were qualified PE teachers.
3. However, the 36% who were not qualified is still a large percentage and should raise concern.

The fact that schools did not have qualified PE teachers in the GET Band impacts negatively on the status and practice of LO. Comments from teachers in the current study like ” the children’s attitudes are negative and they are not interested “; ” A full syllabus does not allow the incumbent teacher sufficient time to do physical training “; ” Unqualified persons find it difficult to implement a programme for assessment “; ” Because people are not trained for the movement section it does not come to its right “; ” Less focus on LO as a subject “; ” LO is given to anyone who fits in on the timetable ” is very detrimental for LO as a Learning Area/Subject, but also for education in general.

1. By placing teachers in situations where they lack expertise or find themselves outside their league does not only create stressful situations for the teachers, but raises a number of questions for the learners.
2. They are able to sense the “incompetence” of the teachers and wonder about what value is attached to LO if it is presented by “unqualified” teachers or shifted from one teacher to the next from year to year (Van Deventer & Van Niekerk, 2008:135).

The status of LO can only be determined by the epistemology and skills of the teachers who teach it (Rooth, 2005; Christiaans, 2006; Prinsloo, 2007). Although scientific research on the significance of physical activity “for physical and mental health and many kinds of human well-being” has increased dramatically (Telama, 2002:11), the current situation in South African schools does not enhance the situation to improve the health of our youth.

1. If learners do not or cannot experience the importance of what LO should be, because schools attach little value to it by appointing generalist teachers, how can learners add value to LO and their lives? (Hendricks, 2004; Rooth, 2005; Theron & Denzell, 2006; Prinsloo, 2007).
2. This is in line with Christiaans’s (2006) concern that school principals are not sympathetic to the successful implementation of LO.

Rooth (2005) and Prinsloo ( 2007) believe that it is unrealistic to expect thoroughly trained and experienced LO teachers in all schools because it is a new Learning Area/Subject within a curriculum in rapid transition. I could not disagree more with this statement.

1. It is not educationally sound to implement a new learning area/subject without having the necessary human resources to present it.
2. In the long run only education in general and more specifically the learners suffer as a consequence of such a decision by the authorities who have the responsibility to provide quality education that is holistic and looks after the best interests of the learners it serves.

According to the NCS, 33% of the total time of LO in the IP and 30% in the SP, which boils down to approximately 40 minutes per week, is set aside for PDM in the GET Band and 60 minutes per week for PE in the FET Band (DoE, 2003b; DoE, 2008a). Regarding the time allocation for PDM and PE in general within the framework of LO, it seemed as if most schools felt that the time allocation was sufficient.

• However, Rooth (2005) warns that precise time allocation is not a straightforward factor to ascertain due to the diffuse definitions and understanding of what constitutes LO amongst LO teachers.
• From some of the comments made by LO teachers in the current study it could be deduced that PE was viewed as something separate from LO which adds to the confusion regarding sufficient time allocation for LO.

The misconception regarding sufficient time on the school timetable for PDM and PE in the current study can further be ascribed to the fact that the LO teachers are not knowledgeable regarding the subject matter of PE. Although most schools did not have LO teachers that were qualified in PE, a number of LO teachers reported that they knew how to assess the Learning Outcomes PDM and PE of LO, respectively.

This finding is contrary to the finding that most LO teachers in the GET and FET bands were not knowledgeable about the content of PE. It is doubtful whether these LO teachers are knowledgeable enough to be able to assess the subject matter of PE. However, a further analysis indicated that most of the LO teachers do need assistance in developing learner portfolios, movement rubrics and movement matrixes which again confirms the necessity of having specifically trained teachers for specific learning areas/subjects.

As was stated earlier it is issues like these that do tremendous harm to a learning area’s/subject’s status and to education in general. Most of the LO teachers in the GET Band and in Grades 10 and 11 reported that they did not have sufficient facilities and equipment to present PE, Sport and Recreation.

• However, to a certain degree, the LO teachers did indicate that they had the necessary facilities to present PE, Sport and Recreation.
• Van Deventer (1999) reported similar results.
• A conclusion that is in line with all the above arguments regarding the urgent need for properly qualified LO teachers can be drawn from the fact that the majority of the LO teachers indicated that they need INSET workshops related to recent developments in LO.

As far back as 2001, Welton (2001) purported that there seems to be a massive need amongst teachers for knowledge, skills and understanding to handle all the pressures and to manage change. For most of the LO teachers in the current survey, notwithstanding the fact that they had to manage change, they also needed to manage an unfamiliar environment with unfamiliar tools (i.e.

The Learning Outcomes, PDM and PE, of LO). Although INSET is only a short-term solution, it is at least a starting point. Recommendations If LO is regarded as an important Learning Area/Subject in the NCS, as postulated by the DoE (DoE, 2002b), Hendricks (2004), Rooth (2005), Theron and Dalzell (2006), Van der Walt and De Klerk (2006), and Prinsloo (2007), action needs to be taken to address the current situation surrounding LO.

The following recommendations are presented: o The major problem reported by the LO teachers is that they are not qualified to teach all the learning outcomes of LO. To alleviate the immediate need, LO teachers should undergo INSET to enable them to present not only the Learning Outcomes PDM and PE, respectively, but to be able to teach LO as it should be taught as an integrated whole.

This situation should receive immediate attention by the DoE and HEIs. In-service education and training can be in the form of an Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) running over a period of one or two years or it can be in the form of short courses structured over a specific period of time depending on the nature of the content to be covered.

o Another way to alleviate immediate needs could be to cluster schools that are situated close to each other within a specific region. These schools could then share resources (e.g. sports facilities and equipment and human resources), or a qualified PE teacher could be appointed to teach LO at this cluster of schools.

• This is not something new.
• The DoE refers to this concept as multipurpose cluster facilities (DoE, 2000b).
• In 2000 one of the priorities of Sport and Recreation South Africa was to establish multi-purpose sports facilities in disadvantaged communities (DSR, 2000).
• O A more aggressive approach for pre-service education and training (PRESET) of LO teachers should be launched immediately by HEIs to ensure that the backlog of teachers, due to transformation in education, teacher- learner ratios and the elimination of non-examinable subjects, is erased.

It is known that many HEIs in SA do not present an education component with the Sport Science degree and these institutions do not link a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) to their Sport Science programmes. o Higher Education Institutions should become more involved in INSET as part of their community interaction strategy.

Postgraduate students could be used in INSET by making service-learning a credit-bearing component of their programme. Schools in which the service-learning takes place can be ‘adopted’ by HEIs. o Regarding the PRESET of prospective teachers, universities should be more flexible regarding the programmes that they design and present.

In certain instances programmes at universities are so fixed in their structure that it is impossible for students to select the necessary modules at graduate level in order to present at least two school subjects in the PGCE. In certain instances students who really want to teach are kept out of the profession due to this reason.

• O Regarding PRESET in the BEd degree an insufficient amount of time in the four-year programme is devoted to the movement component of LO.
• These students study to become teachers in the GET Band and most of them are not movement orientated.
• It therefore takes more time to teach these students the different movement forms to enable them to teach the movement outcome of LO.

o To have a real impact, more time per week should be allocated to the Learning Outcome, PDM. Only then will learners be able to realise the benefits associated with regular exercise. o The DoE should also be part of the solution. In 1997, Burnett purported that SA urgently needs a clear-cut policy on PE and school sport (PESS), the provision of much needed infrastructure and an effective and efficient delivery system and qualified PE specialists (Burnett, 1997).

• Since 1995 a number of initiatives have been launched to ensure that PESS has a place in South Africa’s education system.
• This culminated in a collaborative effort in 2000 to develop a policy for PESS by an Interdepartmental Task Team (IDTT) for which the DoE was responsible (IDTT, 2000; Van Deventer, 2002).

With the publication of the Review Committee’s report on C2005 on 31 May 2000 the work of the IDTT was abruptly terminated (Van Deventer, 2002). Since then a number of documents regarding PESS have been drafted and a number of articles have appeared in newspapers countrywide.

• In the 2007 budget speech the South African Deputy Minister of Sport and Recreation made a number of important statements regarding PESS in particular.
• On the one hand, the Deputy Minister purports that he is worried about the damage that has been caused by the demise of PE in South African schools, that school sport must be massified and coached by teachers who are trained to provide quality coaching.

The Deputy Minister states that “Physical Education as a subject is high on the agenda of the DoE” (Oosthuizen, 2007:5). In the light of these and previous statements by the South African government, the main question that remains unanswered is when this paper game will come to an end so that the disparities of the past can be equalised.

We need to remember that the impact of OBE cannot be equal in unequal conditions (Jansen, 1999; Botha, 2002; Fiske & Ladd, 2004; Prinsloo, 2007). It should also be remembered that lifestyle changes prevalent in modern society require paradigm shifts in attitudes, through processes and approaches to bring about an awareness of quality of life and total wellness.

This does not occur overnight. Changes in lifestyle patterns do not involve fairies and magic wands, but hard, persistent work from dedicated teachers in experiential learning environments that are qualified to do the job. Higher Education Institutions have a major role to play in this regard by producing quality teachers motivated to provide such a service to South African schools (Van Deventer & Van Niekerk, 2008).

We are in agreement with a statement of Hardman (2003:30) that we can: accept the situation for what it is and suffer the consequences; the other is to confront the situations and address available options, Acknowledement I acknowledge the contributions of Ms E van Niekerk towards this research. References Botha RJ 2002.

Outcomes-based education and educational reform in South Africa. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5:361-371. Burnett C 1997. Can sport and recreation address the manifestation of poverty in the South African context? African Journal for Physical, Health Education, recreation and Dance (AJPHERD), 3:83-107.

1. Christiaans DJ 2006.
2. Empowering teachers to implement the Life Orientation learning area in the Senior Phase of the General Education and Training Band.
3. Unpublished MEd dissertation.
4. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
5. Department of Education (DoE) 1997.
6. Curriculum 2005,
7. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education (DoE) 2000a. Report of the review committee on Curriculum 2005. A South African Curriculum for the 21st Century, Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education (DoE) 2000b. Ministerial briefing guidelines on policy on human movement and school sport — draft 3, May 2000,

• Pretoria: Department of Education.
• Department of Education (DoE) 2002a.
• Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9 (Schools).
• Overview,
• Pretoria: Department of Education.
• Department of Education (DoE) 2002b.
• Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9 (Schools).
• Life Orientation,
• Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education (DoE) 2003a. National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General). Life Orientation, Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education (DoE) 2003b. Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9 (Schools). Teacher’s guide for the development of learning programmes policy guidelines,

1. Life Orientation,
2. Pretoria: Department of Education.
3. Department of Education (DoE) 2008a.
4. National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General).
5. Subject assessment guidelines: Life Orientation,
6. Pretoria: Department of Education.
7. Department of Education (DoE) 2008b.
8. National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General).

Learning programme guidelines: Life Orientation, Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) 2000. White-paper: Department of Sport and Recreation, Available at, Fiske EB & Ladd H 2004. Equity. Education reform in post-apartheid South Africa,

• Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
• Hardman K 2003.
• The state and status of physical education in schools: Foundation for deconstruction and reconstruction of physical education.
• In: K Hardman (ed.).
• Physical education: Deconstruction and reconstruction — Issues and directions (15-34).
• Sport Science Studies, 12.

Berlin: International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education. Harley K & Wedekind V 2004. Political change, curriculum change and social formation, 1990 to 2002. In: L Chisholm (ed.). Changing class, education and social change in post-apartheid South Africa,

London: Zed Books. Hendricks PC 2004. The role of physical education in South African primary schools. Unpublished MEd dissertation. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Interdepartmental Task Team (IDTT) 2000. Draft agenda of the meeting of the Interdepartmental Task Team on policy for physical education/human movement and school sport, 15-16 March, Pretoria.

Pretoria: Department of Education. Jansen JD 1998. Curriculum reform in South Africa: A critical analysis of outcomes-based education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28:321-331. Jansen JD 1999. Globalisation, curriculum and the Third World State: In dialogue with Michael Apple.

• Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1:42-47.
• Manganyi NC 2001.
• Public policy and the transformation of education in South Africa.
• In: Y Sayed & J Jansen (eds).
• Implementing education policy.
• The South African experience,
• Cape Town: UCT Press.
• Mathieson S 2001.
• The role of the ANC Education Study Group in the legislative and policy process.

In: Y Sayed & J Jansen (eds). Implementing education policy. The South African experience, Cape Town: UCT Press. Oosthuizen GC 2007. Budget speech of Deputy Minister Gert C Oosthuizen, MP, 22 May 2007. Pretoria: Department of Sport and Recreation South Africa.

Prinsloo E 2007. Implementation of life orientation programmes in the new curriculum in South African schools: perceptions of principals and life orientation teachers. South African Journal of Education, 27:155-170. Rooth E 2005. An investigation of the status and practice of Life Orientation in South African schools.

Unpublished PhD thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Roux CJ, Burnett C & Hollander WJ 2008. Curriculum enrichment through indigenous Zulu games. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 30:89-103. STATSOFT 2007.

1. Statistica for Windows: General conventions and statistics,
2. Tilsa, OK: Statsoft.
3. Talbot M 2001.
4. The case for physical education.
5. In: G Doll-Tepper & D Scoretz (eds).
6. Proceedings of the world summit on physical education,
7. Berlin, November 3-5, 1999.
8. Schorndorf: Verlag Karl Hofmann Schorndorf.
9. Telama R 2002.

ICSSPE and initiatives for physical education. International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education Bulletin, 34:10-12. Theron L & Dalzell C 2006. The specific Life Orientation needs of Grade 9 Learners in the Vaal Triangle region. South African Journal of Education, 26:397-412.

Todd A & Mason M 2005. Enhancing learning in South African schools: strategies beyond outcomes-based education. International Journal of Educational Development, 25:221-235. Vambe MT 2005. Opening and transforming South African education. Open Learning, 20:285-293. Van der Walt JL & De Klerk J 2006. Die effektiwiteit van die Lewensoriënteringsprogram volgens ‘n groep Suid-Afrikaanse onderwysers — ruimte vir verbetering? Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap, 42:175-193.

Van Deventer KJ 1999. Physical education and sport in selected Western Cape High schools. Unpublished research report. Stellenbosch: Department of Sport Science, Stellenbosch University. Van Deventer KJ 2002. Quality physical education and the partnership concept.

1. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and recreation, 24:101-119.
2. Van Deventer KJ 2004.
3. A case for physical education/Life Orientation: the health of a nation.
4. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and recreation, 26:107-121.
5. Van Deventer KJ 2007.
6. A paradigm shift in Life Orientation: A review.

South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and recreation, 29:131-146. Van Deventer KJ & Van Niekerk E 2008. Life Orientation in grades R-11: Teachers’ perspectives on the implementation of Life Orientation in selected Western Cape Schools.

1. Unpublished research report.
2. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
3. Welton J 2001.
4. Building capacity to deliver education in South Africa? In: Y Sayed & J Jansen (eds).
5. Implementing education policy.
6. The South African experience,
7. Cape Town: UCT Press.
8. Whitaker T & Whitaker B 1995.
9. Outcomes-based education: The need, the critics, the movement forward.

The struggle to ensure learning. Contemporary Education, 66:248-250.
View complete answer

Why was the NCF 2005 introduced?

NCF 2005: The National Curriculum Framework 2005 basically known as the 4th National Curriculum Framework was created to improve the education system and to create quality education in India. The process of its implementation in India had already been initiated.
View complete answer

Is there any NCF after 2005?

History textbooks as of now are on the basis of NCF 2005. The new NCF after NEP 2020 is under preparation.
View complete answer

Who is the chairman of National Curriculum Framework?

Initiatives launched today will help equip our young ones with cognitive & linguistic competencies of the 21st century- Shri Dharmendra Pradhan – Posted On: 20 OCT 2022 5:26PM by PIB Delhi Union Education and Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Shri Dharmendra Pradhan today launched the National Curriculum Framework for Foundational Stage and the pilot project of Balvatika 49 Kendriya Vidyalayas across the country.

Smt. Annapurna Devi, MoS for Education; Dr. Subhash Sarkar, MoS for Education along with Secretary, School Education, Smt Anita Karwal; Secretary, Youth Affairs and Sports Shri Sanjay Kumar; Director, NCERT, Shri Dinesh Saklani; Members of the Steering and Mandate Committee of NCF and senior officials of Ministry of Education were present on the occasion.

Chairman, Members of the Steering and Mandate Committee of NCF, Shri K. Kasturirangan also attended the event virtually. Speaking on the occasion, Shri Pradhan said that today is a landmark day towards fulfilling objectives of NEP. The ‘yagya’ and churning that India witnessed in the last 8 years has started to bear ‘Amrit’. He further said that Foundational, Preparatory, Middle & Secondary are the four stages of NCF for school education.

• Developing the foundational framework was one of the most important and challenging aspect under NEP 2020, as it has a huge bearing on shaping the future of our country, he added.
• He complimented everyone who has contributed to the development of National Curriculum Framework for foundation stage.
• This new framework will help equip our young ones with cognitive & linguistic competencies of the 21st century, he said.

The Minister urged NCERT to place this NCF in public domain, take it to SCERTs and to all stakeholders involved in early childhood care and development. While speaking on the occasion, Dr Kasturirangan, Chairperson of National Steering Committee to develop NCF said that the Foundational stage NCF was the first integrated NCF of the country for ages 3-8 years and is set to transform quality of education through holistic approach.

• The National Education Policy 2020 – that is NEP 2020 – is transforming education in India.
• It has set our education system on a path to delivering the highest quality education for all, with equity and inclusion.
• Amongst the most transformative aspects of NEP 2020 is the new 5+3+3+4 curricular structure which integrates Early Childhood Care and Education for all children of ages 3 to 8.

Early childhood lays the foundation for life-long learning and development – it is a key determinant of the quality of overall life. This framework is expected to deliver the highest quality Foundational Education, across all types of institutions in the country.

As articulated in NEP 2020, National Curriculum Framework for Foundational Stage, uses ‘play,’ at the core of the conceptual, operational, and transactional approaches to curriculum organization, pedagogy, time and content organization, and the overall experience of the child. Children learn best through play, hence learning envisaged by the National Curriculum Framework will provide stimulating experiences for the child’s development in all dimensions – cognitive, social-emotional, physical, and will also enable the achievement of Foundational Literacy and Numeracy for all our children.

The NCF has an institutional focus, the importance of the home environment cannot be overemphasized – including family, extended family, neighbours, and others in the close community – all of whom have a very significant impact on the child, particularly in this age cohort of 3-8 years.

Hence, this NCF will deal with the role of teachers as well as parents and communities in enabling and enhancing the developmental outcomes that are sought during this stage. Balvatika Classes for students in the age groups of 3+, 4+ and 5+ years of age is being introduced in a set of 49 Kendriya Vidyalayas.

Since more than 85% of a child’s cumulative brain development occurs prior to the age of 6, providing appropriate care to stimulate their brain and support their physical and emotional development is essential for every child. All these engagements are aimed at achieving the three developmental goals of

maintaining good health and well-being, becoming effective communicators; and

· becoming involved learners. Kindly see the link below to access National Curriculum Framework for the Foundational Stage: https://ncert.nic.in/pdf/NCF_for_Foundational_Stage_20_October_2022.pdf MJPS/AK (Release ID: 1869612) Visitor Counter : 1386
View complete answer

What is the main goal of National Curriculum Framework 2005?

What are the objectives of education given by the National Curriculum Framework 2005? – Which areas were covered for reform? How will you achieve any four objectives through co-curricular activities of your school? The National Curriculum Framework 2005 aims to create a future generation who believe in the democratic system, values and is sensitive towards gender, justice, understands the problems faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the physically or mentally challenged and actively participates in the economic, social and political progress and development of the country.
View complete answer

How many NCF have been formed till now?

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) aims to devise four National Curriculum Frameworks (NCFs), for which a comprehensive strategy has been worked out jointly by the Ministry of Education (MoE) and National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT),

National Curriculum Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education (NCFECCE) National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) National Curriculum Framework for Adult Education (NCFAE)

Background The National Education Policy (NEP) is a comprehensive framework to guide the development of education in the country. As a policy of education, it not only guides the development of education but also provides directions for regulating and promoting education.

The education policy covers education at all the stages including early childhood care and education, school education, higher education, teacher education and vocational education.The first National Policy on Education was formulated in 1968, the second was in 1986 modified in 1992 and the latest National Education Policy in India is NEP, 2020.

The National Education Policy 2020 is the first education policy of the 21 st century in India and aims to address the many growing developmental imperatives of our country. NEP, 2020 was released on 29 th July, 2020 in India. As per the policy the aim is to have an education system by 2040 that is second to none, with equitable access to the highest-quality education for all learners regardless of social or economic background.

• The Policy proposes the revision and revamping of all aspects of the education structure, including its regulation and governance, to create a new system that is aligned with the aspirational goals of 21st century education, including SDG4, while building upon India’s traditions and value systems.
• Strategy for Evolving NCFs All states/UTs will first prepare their State Curriculum Frameworks (SCFs) passing through the process of district level consultations, mobile app survey and development of position papers by the State Focus Groups in 25 areas/themes identified as per the NEP, 2020 including ECCE, Teacher Education and Adult Education.

These draft SCFs will provide inputs to the development of NCFs, States/UTs and Autonomous organisations working under MoE, all will attempt this process to provide inputs for the NCFs, Recommendations of NEP, 2020 will be kept in view during the whole process. National Curriculum Framework (NCF) in Media Drawing insights from these position papers and draft SCFs, four NCFs will be prepared. The whole process will be done using paperless approach including consultations and preparation of reports at all levels using Tech platform specially designed for the purpose by NCERT and NIC, MoE.

1. On this platform all the States/UTs will be provided with e-templates for the consultations, surveys, position papers, etc., and will continuously be supported by the nodal officers nominated at the central level.
2. States will also nominate their nodal officers for smooth and speedy flow of this process.

Draft NCFs will be translated in 22 languages given in VIII schedule of the Constitution and shared with the States/UTs for their comments. Taking care of their comments, the NCFs will be given final shape and will be placed before Ministry of Education for the approval processes.

National Curriculum Framework (NCF) Mandate Document Released for development of NCF National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)

View complete answer

What is NCF in School Education?

The Union Education ministry today launched the National Curriculum Framework for foundational stage education of children in the three to eight years age group. The NCF has four sections – the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, the National Curriculum Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education, the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education and the National Curriculum Framework for Adult Education,

1. The framework focuses on the ‘panchakosha’ concept – the ancient Indian emphasis on the body-mind connect.
2. In context of education of children, the NCF says its five parts are physical development (sharirik vikas), development of life energy (pranik vikas), emotional and mental development (manasik vikas), intellectual development (bauddhik vikas) and spiritual development (chaitsik vikas).

“The NCF (National Curriculum Framework) is an important step taken to implement the New Education Policy-2020. I also appeal to the National Council of Educational Research and Training ( NCERT ) to complete curriculum, syllabus, and textbooks by next Basant Panchami,” Education Minister Pradhan said at the launch.
View complete answer

What was the National Curriculum in 1988?

The National Curriculum – The national curriculum required that all schools teach the same subject content from the age of 7-16. From 1988 all schools were required to teach the core subjects English, Maths, Science etc at GCSE level. GCSE’s and SAT’s were also introduced as part of the National Curriculum.
View complete answer

What is NCF 2022?

National Curriculum Framework for Foundational Stage: Four Sections of NCF 2022 – The NCF-2022 has four sections:

The National Curriculum Framework for School Education The National Curriculum Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education and The National Curriculum Framework for Adult Education.

View complete answer

Why did NCF 2005 fail?

A few chapters short – 07 December 2005 The new National Curriculum Framework has put the child firmly at the centre of its proposals. But critics point out that it has overlooked many problems, such as the lack of infrastructure, inadequate teacher training, and continuing social biases.

Some provisions have also been attacked as obscurantist. Deepa A reports.07 December 2005 – Textbooks and tests have long been the two words that defined the Indian education system, but now the National Curriculum Framework 2005 is doing its utmost to change that perception. The 124-page document, prepared by the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), emphasises the words learning without burden and child-centred education repeatedly.

Its volley of suggestions, already reflected in the new NCERT syllabus for classes one to twelve, includes cutting down on the number of textbooks, making assessment methods flexible, and promoting more inclusive learning. More dramatically, it makes a case for doing away with stereotypes based on gender and caste.

Perhaps the spirit of the document (the NCF and the new syllabus can be accessed at the website www.ncert.nic.in) is reflected in the many examples for innovative teaching suggestions that pepper its pages. For instance, one illustration titled Talking Pictures, recommends: “Show the class a picture of a household with various members of the family performing various tasks.

The difference is the father is cooking, the mother fixing the light bulb, the daughter returning from school on a bicycle, and the son milking the cow, the grandfather is sewing on a button and the grandmother is doing the accounts. Ask the children to talk about the picture,

Do they think that there is any work that these people should not be doing? Why? Involve them in a discussion on dignity of work, equality and gender,” By breaking away from established notions and prevalent teaching practices, the framework has laid the ground for making learning a more exciting experience.

As NCERT Director Krishna Kumar explains, the NCF is “sensitive” to the needs of children and understands that the ultimate goal of education is to “motivate”. And even its critics agree that this NCF takes a step forward by recognising the importance of the child in the school education system. Illustration: Farzana Cooper A new beginning A fresh look at syllabi is certainly required in many states in the country, where changes in curricula sometimes occur only every 10 years. “Central boards of education, such as the CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) and the ICSE (Indian School Certificate Examinations), revise textbooks more frequently.

• States are more conservative, and revisions of curriculum happen slowly,” says Kulbhushan Kushal, regional director of the DAV Group of educational institutions in Maharashtra and Gujarat.
• While modifications are expected to take place according to new education policies, it is only CBSE schools, and states such as Uttaranchal and Jharkhand that immediately follow the NCERT syllabus.

The need for change is accepted widely. “Discussions have centred around the relevance of the present education system – there is a feeling among teachers, parents and children that the system is irrelevant,” says V. Madhusudan, additional project coordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Hyderabad.

According to Krishna Kumar, the Goa government has been the first to write to NCERT expressing a desire to adopt and implement the new national framework. “We have to start taking decisions (based on the NCF), and identify resources (to implement it). It is today or never,” he says. But the new framework is still being debated in many states in the country.

Educating the educator The framework suggests that students should be able to “connect knowledge to life outside school” and “ensure that learning is shifted away from rote methods”. It recommends that teachers should encourage children not just to answer questions but also to frame questions themselves, and “plan lessons so that children are challenged to think and not simply repeat what is told to them.” By stressing on these methods, the framework emphasises not just the role of the child, but also that of the teacher.

1. The current NCF comes after what is generally considered to have been the “saffron venture” of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance, as reflected in NCF 2000.
2. Professor Yash Pal, chairperson of the National Steering Committee, notes in his foreword to the framework that they have “avoided the blame game”.

This very fact, however, has not gone down well with individuals and organisations battling communalism. Says Rajan Prasad of Sahmat, a non-governmental organisation that has organised debates on the framework, “There was a whole campaign against communalisation, and instead of directly confronting the issue, the new NCF is made to appear as if it is only meant to reduce the burden of children.” The NCF should have explicitly stated that it is a secular document, he adds. • • • Its path-breaking suggestions notwithstanding, there are questions about the extent to which the framework can be translated into reality. When many schools have no infrastructure to speak of, when teachers are hired on contract to teach for a few hours daily, will it be possible to make the child the centre of learning, as the framework whole-heartedly recommends? Critics point out that the NCF does not adequately consider the teacher training processes that need to precede the classroom reforms it preaches.

1. The framework does have a section on Teacher Education for Curriculum Renewal, which, among other things, admits that, “Attempts at curricular reform have not been adequately supported by teacher education.
2. Large-scale recruitment of para-teachers has diluted the identity of the teacher as a professional.” Also acknowledging that “any curriculum renewal effort needs to be supported with well thought-out (sic) and systematic programme of in-service education,”, the framework suggests strategies for organising teacher training programmes.

Yet, though the framework has taken a positive step by recognising the importance of teachers, it “could have taken a clearer view and made a series of policy recommendations on the subject,” says Poonam Batra, professor in Delhi University’s Department of Education, who has written a paper on the subject for the Economic and Political Weekly,

1. If education is empowerment, then it cannot talk only of students’ empowerment.
2. It should include teachers’ empowerment,” she adds.
3. A redesigned curriculum will not be imparted through textbooks alone – the teacher will be the one conveying it to students; and, however well a textbook is written, it should have clear “pedagogic methods”, says Batra.

As she writes in her piece, “In the present form the NCF 2005 does not take a clear position on the current state of teacher education, the dying cadre of the trained elementary government schoolteacher and the increasing reliance of many state governments on a fast growing cadre of para teachers.” The framework should also have made clear the kind of interventions required to implement it fully, says Batra.

In particular, the NCF does not offer suggestions on how experiences and voices excluded from the classroom till now can be brought in. It is wrong to assume – as the NCF does – that teachers will be far removed from their own socio-political context, where biases and discrimination against people, based on their backgrounds, exist, she adds.

“Teacher education is an isolated process not linked to other departments,” she says, “as a result, academic debates on equity and gender seldom enter the insular world of teaching educators.” Shailendra Kumar Sharma, senior programme coordinator of Pratham, a non-governmental organisation that works on education issues, says that interactions with teachers reveal that they are not ready to implement the changes suggested by the framework.

1. Is adequate support being provided to teachers to effect this paradigm shift?” he wonders.
2. There is cynicism among teachers, especially in government schools, and besides, there’s a considerable amount of divide between teachers and children from the marginalised sections of society, he adds.
3. Teachers sometimes simply don’t understand, or do not care to understand, where the child is coming from, says Sharma.

Krishna Kumar, on the other hand, says that the National Council for Teacher Education, a statutory body that lays down guidelines for regulating teachers’ education in the country, has welcomed NCF 2005. The council has agreed to reorganise Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) programmes on the basis of NCF, he adds.

1. The NCERT is also looking at conducting brief in-service programmes and release audio and video programmes to supplement its framework.
2. Reality bites The NCF has devoted a chapter to School and Classroom Environment, mentioning that “not enough attention is paid to the importance of (sic) physical environment for learning”.

It says that classrooms are overcrowded and unattractive, despite the fact that children want to be in a colourful, friendly and playful space. The framework suggests ways to make school buildings and classrooms attractive, and says that heads of school and block functionaries should focus on ensuring that at least minimum infrastructural requirements are met.

1. It also mentions that the ideal number of students in a class should be around 30.
2. The NCF has, however, shown a marked reluctance to ask the government to ensure better standards in its schools, many of which are crumbling and lack everything from teachers to toilets.
3. It is also silent on how schools dealing with such basic infrastructural problems, with just a couple of teachers for 500-odd students or so, can implement its suggestions.

Anil Sadgopal, member of the National Steering Committee that framed the curriculum, points out, “No curriculum reforms will be meaningful without systemic reforms in the school system.” The NCF does not present a clear view on the government’s role and has, instead, opted to say what the government wants to hear, he adds.

1. More concrete policy changes need to be initiated to implement the suggestions made by NCF, says Madhusudhan.
2. Writing in the Social Scientist ‘s issue on ‘Debating Education’, historian Irfan Habib points out that “almost every proposal it (the NCF 2005) makes is only practical – if at all! – for elite schools.

Its insistence on “individualised attention” to be given to all children, or multiplicity of subject choices, or two levels (standard/higher) of teaching, are all possible only for highly privileged schools. In other respects too the proposals in NCF-2005 would disadvantage the poor.” Call for clarity Some of the framework’s proposals have evoked despair, and even anger.

Two of these, in particular – the glorification of ‘local knowledge’, and a proposal to do away with examinations as the chief assessment tools, have come in for severe criticism. Drawing a halo around “local knowledge” could lead to obscurantist ideas, fears Rajan Prasad of Sahmat. The NCF states, “The child’s community and local environment form the primary context in which learning takes place, and in which knowledge acquires its significance,

In this document, we emphasise the significance of contextualising education: of situating learning in a child’s context.” Children should be encouraged to learn from communities and knowledgeable individuals who are a storehouse of information on India’s environment, says the framework.

The only caveat mentioned here is that “all forms of local knowledge must be mediated through Constitutional values and principles.” In a note critiquing the processes, Teesta Setalvad, editor of Communalism Combat, points out that the overemphasis on “diffused local knowledge” could be “dangerous”.”,

If implemented in the current form, the NCF 2005 would be a continued invitation to dubious, hugely-funded non-governmental organisations to continue to operate freely in the area of mass education and even draw government funds where politically sympathetic regimes exist,” she writes.

• The document itself is not cohesive, and merely talking of equity as a token gesture is not sufficient, says Setalvad.
• There is inequity of caste in our system, but liberals resist from admitting it,” she adds.
• The plan to dilute the role of examinations has produced sneers as well.
• The framework “attempts to remind teachers that assessment techniques have to be evolved to recognise children’s success, rather than find ways to fail them,” says the NCERT director.

Those are the very points that critics like Habib question, fearing that educators will be coerced into regarding even non-performing students as successful by some yardstick. As he writes in his piece, How to evade real issues and make room for obscurantism, “The one way, however defective in actual practice, that may still be employed to keep a check on actual content of teaching in schools, is the system of examinations.

NCF-2005 is, however, intent on reducing these to mere farcical exercises.” No verdict yet The bottom-line question for such proposed reforms is ‘will it work?’ Indeed, can one expect the NCF to work magic in schools where even a blackboard is a scarce commodity? Krishna Kumar points to roles that have to be played by others, saying, “The NCF recognises that a complex set of factors is necessary for educational reforms – and civil society is a major factor.” The way governments act will depend on civil society and the societal pressure on them to perform, he adds.

The NCF, approved in September by the Central Advisory Board on Education in September, presents just one “aspect of educational reforms”, he says. When economic reforms are still continuing after 14 years, educational reforms would clearly take much longer, he explains.

1. The document shows the direction,
2. At best, it can be a starting point,” he adds.
3. The framework’s positive attributes, the director points out, include the fact that it acknowledges the child’s primacy and does not impose a straight-jacketed, narrow notion on children.
4. Rishna Kumar claims that the new teaching methods will also contribute to stemming the current drop-out rate – as many as 53 percent of the children drop out by the time they reach class eight now.

“It is the biased nature of the present curriculum against girls and marginalised groups that’s partly responsible for making present-day education an alienating experience,” he says. : A few chapters short – 07 December 2005
View complete answer

Who is the founder of NCF 2005?

Yash Pal (1926-2017): The teacher who turned people’s common sense into good sense It was always hard to figure out how Professor Yash Pal maintained both hope and stamina. When things got messy, he would ask: “So, are you saying that we should give up on India?” It was not an open question.

• It was, in fact, the only closed question, that is, one with a fixed answer, he ever asked.
• Otherwise, Yash Pal treated all questions, especially from children, as invitations to let the mind roll freely from one context to another, noticing plug points where fresh connections were waiting to be established.

His primary identity was that of a scientist, but I knew him mainly as a pedagogue. He could turn any object or problem into a mystery deserving contemplation in its own right. During a meeting in Thiruvananthapuram, he chose a broom to illustrate his point that any object was good enough to make children think and inquire.

1. Startled, and a bit embarrassed, his erudite audience heard him analyse the various properties of the common broom and its physics.
2. On another occasion, he explained the movement of planets by recalling the milk pot he had seen people carry in his childhood.
3. They swung their right arm in rhythmic movement, holding the pot filled with milk to the brim.

Why did it not spill? The answer showed parallels with the solar system. In the history of educational theory, Yash Pal could only be bracketed with Antonio Gramsci. Like him, Yash Pal had full faith in the practices and wisdom of ordinary men and women.

1. The job of a teacher-intellectual is to turn people’s common sense into good sense, armed with the capacity for abstraction that permits the human mind to see interconnections between problems and spheres of knowledge.
2. The various documents on educational policy prepared under his leadership can be summarised in one word – and it was his favourite word – “coupling”.

That is, making connections and creating the possibility of dialogue. He thought the root problem of India’s education system was “cubiclisation” – the tendency among teachers and researchers of different subjects to work in isolation. During the drafting of his in 2008, he once explained to a small audience why the ultrasound testing machinery could not have been invented in India.

• It took scientists, engineers and doctors to work together, and in our country these three live in separate institutions.
• I suspect Yash Pal knew how alien his ideas were to most teachers and administrators in India.
• This awareness did not make him gloomy about the success of his efforts to melt the boundaries that keep the education system fragmented.

Rather, the realisation that the process of change he wanted to see was going to be tough filled him with an explorer’s energy and excitement. There are several documents carrying Yash Pal’s name, and their readers live in separate worlds. For instance, the, which he enabled the National Council of Educational Research and Training to draft remained unknown and unread in universities.

• Arjun Singh, then the human resource development minister, had told a seminar of vice chancellors that higher education needed a similar document.
• Instant criticism greeted this statement.
• The critics alleged that the minister wanted to impose a uniform curriculum on universities.
• Apparently, the critics had not read the National Curriculum Framework.

During the drafting of the framework and even after it was approved, Yash Pal was criticised, often bitterly, by both the Left and the Right. Neither side had the imagination and openness to grasp what he was trying to do. It is no surprise that although he lived among scientists, bureaucrats and politicians, Yash Pal was most comfortable and visibly happy when he was with children, responding to their questions or posing his own.

Why do champa flowers come down from the tree rotating? Why doesn’t HIV spread through mosquitoes? Why do two layers form in a roti, allowing steam to puff it up? His responses to thousands of such questions remain the key resource for us to make sense of his vanguard pedagogy. It lies in encouraging every child’s natural ability to find problems and pursue them.

Some of these questions have been published by the NCERT under the title Discovered Questions, Another volume, titled Random Curiosities, has been published by the National Book Trust. In his final years, Yash Pal was worried and a bit gloomy about the closing of the Indian mind.

He was unhappy that his report on higher education was seen in conjunction with that of the Knowledge Commission. Kapil Sibal, the human resource development minister in the previous Congress-led government, and many others spoke about the two as if they were similar. The political transition that ushered in the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government created the feeling that a break from basic continuities in national reconstruction was imminent.

The man who had worked with many regimes and knew how to make rivals converse felt uncertain at the end. He was anxious that our old tendency to buy and use solutions created elsewhere had regained ground. Nation-building, Yash Pal felt, was losing its inventive character.
View complete answer

How many National Curriculum frameworks are there?

Free HP JBT TET 2021 Official Paper 150 Questions 150 Marks 150 Mins National Curriculum Framework commonly known as ‘ NCF ‘ is driven with the vision to address issues such as equality of opportunities, assessing learning, quality experiences, educational purposes, etc. Key Points There are four NCF published in India by NCERT, which are as follow:

1. NCF 1975
2. NCF 1988
3. NCF 2000
4. NCF 2005

Important Points

• NCF 1975 developed detailed syllabi for different stages of school education.
• NCF 1988 proposed dropping the term ‘games’ from the lists of subjects at all levels.
• NCF 2000 proposed learning experiences through various classified subject areas.

NCF 2005 provided the basis for developing detailed syllabi for different stages of school education.

Hence, we can conclude that NCF was implemented in the year 2005. Last updated on Dec 7, 2022 HP TET Admit Card has been released on 7th November 2022 for the November Cycle Exam. The Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education has released the new notification for HP TET for the November Cycle.
View complete answer

In which year has proposed the National Curriculum Framework and CF?

Free CT 1: Growth and Development – 1 10 Questions 10 Marks 10 Mins The National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) published a document called the National Curriculum Framework (NCF). National Curriculum Framework is a document that seeks to present a framework within which schools and teachers can select and plan experiences that they feel all children should have. Key Points

T he National Council of Educational Research and Training in India published three National Curriculum Frameworks in 2000, 1988, and 1975. The latest NCF was published in 2005. The document offers a framework for making textbooks, syllabi, as well as teaching practices within the educational programs in Indian schools. NCF 2005 has been translated into 22 languages and influenced the syllabi in 17 states.

Thus by all these references, we can conclude that the National curriculum framework was introduced in 2005. Important Points The Five Major Salient feature s of NCF 2005 are perspective reforms, learning and knowledge process reforms, curriculum and assessment reforms, school and class environment reforms, and systemic reforms.

Its main objective was to construct learning with the child-centric learning process, learning without burden, promoting multilingual education, and replacing rote learning. It ensures that students do not just learn mechanically without thinking. A lot of examination and assessment reforms were also introduced through NCF.

Last updated on Sep 29, 2022 The REET 2022 Certificate Notice is out, for candidates on 6th December 2022! Candidates can download the certification through the official certificate link. REET 2022 Written Exam Result Out on 29th September 2022! The final answer key was also out with the result.

The exam was conducted on the 23rd and 24th of July 2022. The candidates must go through the REET Result 2022 to get the direct link and detailed information on how to check the result. The candidates who will be finally selected for 3rd Grade Teachers are expected to receive Rs.23,700 as salary. Then, the candidates will have to serve a probation period which will last for 2 years.

Also, note during probation, the teachers will receive only the basic salary.
View complete answer

Who prepared the National Curriculum Framework of teacher education 2009?

Fi- nally National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education 2009 was developed by an expert committee comprising of eminent scholars, teacher educators, teachers, representatives of NGOs, faculty of RIEs, NCERT, SCERTs, DIETs, IASEs, CTEs, University departments of education, state departments of education etc.
View complete answer

Who is the founder of NCF 2005?

Yash Pal (1926-2017): The teacher who turned people’s common sense into good sense It was always hard to figure out how Professor Yash Pal maintained both hope and stamina. When things got messy, he would ask: “So, are you saying that we should give up on India?” It was not an open question.

It was, in fact, the only closed question, that is, one with a fixed answer, he ever asked. Otherwise, Yash Pal treated all questions, especially from children, as invitations to let the mind roll freely from one context to another, noticing plug points where fresh connections were waiting to be established.

His primary identity was that of a scientist, but I knew him mainly as a pedagogue. He could turn any object or problem into a mystery deserving contemplation in its own right. During a meeting in Thiruvananthapuram, he chose a broom to illustrate his point that any object was good enough to make children think and inquire.

Startled, and a bit embarrassed, his erudite audience heard him analyse the various properties of the common broom and its physics. On another occasion, he explained the movement of planets by recalling the milk pot he had seen people carry in his childhood. They swung their right arm in rhythmic movement, holding the pot filled with milk to the brim.

Why did it not spill? The answer showed parallels with the solar system. In the history of educational theory, Yash Pal could only be bracketed with Antonio Gramsci. Like him, Yash Pal had full faith in the practices and wisdom of ordinary men and women.

1. The job of a teacher-intellectual is to turn people’s common sense into good sense, armed with the capacity for abstraction that permits the human mind to see interconnections between problems and spheres of knowledge.
2. The various documents on educational policy prepared under his leadership can be summarised in one word – and it was his favourite word – “coupling”.

That is, making connections and creating the possibility of dialogue. He thought the root problem of India’s education system was “cubiclisation” – the tendency among teachers and researchers of different subjects to work in isolation. During the drafting of his in 2008, he once explained to a small audience why the ultrasound testing machinery could not have been invented in India.

It took scientists, engineers and doctors to work together, and in our country these three live in separate institutions. I suspect Yash Pal knew how alien his ideas were to most teachers and administrators in India. This awareness did not make him gloomy about the success of his efforts to melt the boundaries that keep the education system fragmented.

Rather, the realisation that the process of change he wanted to see was going to be tough filled him with an explorer’s energy and excitement. There are several documents carrying Yash Pal’s name, and their readers live in separate worlds. For instance, the, which he enabled the National Council of Educational Research and Training to draft remained unknown and unread in universities.

Arjun Singh, then the human resource development minister, had told a seminar of vice chancellors that higher education needed a similar document. Instant criticism greeted this statement. The critics alleged that the minister wanted to impose a uniform curriculum on universities. Apparently, the critics had not read the National Curriculum Framework.

During the drafting of the framework and even after it was approved, Yash Pal was criticised, often bitterly, by both the Left and the Right. Neither side had the imagination and openness to grasp what he was trying to do. It is no surprise that although he lived among scientists, bureaucrats and politicians, Yash Pal was most comfortable and visibly happy when he was with children, responding to their questions or posing his own.

Why do champa flowers come down from the tree rotating? Why doesn’t HIV spread through mosquitoes? Why do two layers form in a roti, allowing steam to puff it up? His responses to thousands of such questions remain the key resource for us to make sense of his vanguard pedagogy. It lies in encouraging every child’s natural ability to find problems and pursue them.

Some of these questions have been published by the NCERT under the title Discovered Questions, Another volume, titled Random Curiosities, has been published by the National Book Trust. In his final years, Yash Pal was worried and a bit gloomy about the closing of the Indian mind.

• He was unhappy that his report on higher education was seen in conjunction with that of the Knowledge Commission.
• Apil Sibal, the human resource development minister in the previous Congress-led government, and many others spoke about the two as if they were similar.
• The political transition that ushered in the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government created the feeling that a break from basic continuities in national reconstruction was imminent.

The man who had worked with many regimes and knew how to make rivals converse felt uncertain at the end. He was anxious that our old tendency to buy and use solutions created elsewhere had regained ground. Nation-building, Yash Pal felt, was losing its inventive character.
View complete answer

Who wrote the first national curriculum?

1988 Education Reform Act – The first statutory National Curriculum was introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988 by Kenneth Baker, The Programmes of Study were drafted and published in 1988 and 1989, with the first teaching of some elements of the new curriculum beginning in September 1989. Moreover, the curriculum was viewed as an opportunity to promote cultural and moral values.
View complete answer

What is known as Ncfte 2009?

The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, 2009 (NCF 2009) is a Government of India draft. However, its sole purpose is to propose any changes or updates that the National Council for Teacher Education requires. Moreover, the National Council for Teacher Education is an Indian Government body.
View complete answer

Who prepared National Curriculum Framework?

Free CT 1: Growth and Development – 1 10 Questions 10 Marks 10 Mins Ever since 1986 when the National Policy on Education was approved by Parliament, efforts to redesign the curriculum have been focused on the creation of a national system of education. Key Points National Curriculum Framework (NCF):

NPE proposed a national framework for curriculum as a means of evolving a national system of education capable of responding to India’s diversity of geographical and cultural milieus while ensuring a common core of values along with academic components. The NPE (1986) entrusted NCERT with the responsibility of developing the National Curriculum Framework and reviewing the framework at frequent intervals. The National Curriculum Framework 2005 is an official document laying down the needs of the school system of India envisioning the Constitution of India upholding all its tenets. The main purpose was to reduce the curriculum load, remove the anomalies in the system and to create a consensus with the help of new syllabi in the form of a thematically organized body of knowledge.

Hence, it is clear that the National Curriculum Framework was developed by the NCERT. Important Points The Five Basic Tenets of the NCF 2005:

Connecting knowledge to life outside the school. Ensuring that learning shifts away from rote methods. Enriching the curriculum so that it goes beyond textbooks. Making examinations more flexible and integrating them with classroom life, and Nurturing an overriding identity informed by caring concerns within the democratic polity of the country.

Additional Information

University Grants Commission (UGC): It came into existence on 28th December 1953 and became a statutory Organization of the Government of India by an Act of Parliament in 1956, for the coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in university education. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE): The NCTE, as a statutory body came into existence in pursuance of the National Council for Teacher Education Act on the 17th August 1995. The main objective of the NCTE is to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE): It was reconstituted in the year 1962. The main objectives were to serve the educational institutions more effectively, to be responsive to the educational needs of those students whose parents were employed in the Central Government and had frequently transferable jobs.

Last updated on Sep 29, 2022 The REET 2022 Certificate Notice is out, for candidates on 6th December 2022! Candidates can download the certification through the official certificate link. REET 2022 Written Exam Result Out on 29th September 2022! The final answer key was also out with the result.

1. The exam was conducted on the 23rd and 24th of July 2022.
2. The candidates must go through the REET Result 2022 to get the direct link and detailed information on how to check the result.
3. The candidates who will be finally selected for 3rd Grade Teachers are expected to receive Rs.23,700 as salary.
4. Then, the candidates will have to serve a probation period which will last for 2 years.

Also, note during probation, the teachers will receive only the basic salary.
View complete answer