Vol 5; No. 1 A forum for education concerns 2001

ALL the talk in schools is about "getting ahead". Getting ahead in terms of marks, in terms of admissions to select colleges, getting ahead in one's chosen path of study or work. Progress is seen in terms of staying ahead of the class and outrunning the others, meeting the finish line (wherever that may be) faster and with more energy left, than anyone else. Relative performance is key to progress in this schema. No matter that we are good, that we enjoy what we do the way we do it, we must be better than the others, enjoyment or self-satisfaction has nothing to do with the game. The whole system is geared toward meeting or exceeding some fixed target. The students who meet it, by hook or crook, are the ones who "get ahead" while those who for one reason or another cannot comprehend or meet that target, are left behind, or simply ignored, left to find some other way of "proving themselves."

As educators, as parents, as participants in this system, we all worry about what it does to the learning process and to the growth of the individual. Is learning taking place or are targets simply being met, in this race to meet pre-set standards? Is competition, rather than education, becoming the goal? The extrinsic (and sometimes meaningless) rewards of learning (marks and certificates) are defeating the inherent value that learning is supposed to have. Some may say that competition is the only way to motivate students and prompt excellence, but we feel that argument does not hold water. It is assumed to be the only way to motivate, so we look no further than the next test or contest to evaluate progress in learning.

In this issue of Edu-Care, we look at some ways in which we can take the competitive framework head on and meet it with our own arguments. How can we stimulate children to achieve excellence in the absence of competition? What do we do when there seems no escape from competition in certain areas? How do children retain self-esteem and interest in learning when they fall outside competition? The articles in this issue should provide some answers to these questions--and some new directions for thought. UR

THIS is an age of excess. Balance is either a forgotten or a taboo word. Everything has to be the 'best-est', if there is such a superlative. This excess has slowly crept into every sphere of our life.

It is almost an impossible task to exist on a middle level when the measures of excellence have reached such extremes. We hardly dare to take a breath to check upon our assumptions and goals mid-way. Anyway our thinking becomes so befuddled by then that we forget what prompted the action in the first place.

Why do we have to move so quickly--is it a race? Maybe everything looks akin to a race as only the fastest can aspire to reach the destination. The concept of competition comes in extremely handy in this world-view. In fact it sharpens the pace and lengthens our stride so that we can run faster.

Competition is another name for choosing or selecting. It is presented as a means for achieving excellence. Only if you are challenged can you be provoked to become better. A competitive world necessarily has aggression built into it. Success is possible only by sidelining others. We begin to structure our world in such a way that 'exclusion' becomes its building block. Everything exists or can exist only in the dyad of opposites--best or worst; positive or negative; developed or underdeveloped, etc. If this is the dominant worldview which is shaping our children's lives, what can be done to counter it, if one does not subscribe to it?

All we may desire for our children may be a happy and secure life. But is it possible within the above framework? If we go along with the race, many of our children will be surely left behind, despite the Herculean efforts of both parents and children. Our major task seems to be to rebuild their future and restore their self-respect after being branded a failure so early in life. (A small stipulation--the above consequences apply only to the earnest participants in the race-the sincere and the hard working)

Let us not forget that the losers are not just the children who fail to clear the Eamcets and CATs. They include whole masses of people belonging to communities and nations labeled as 'underdeveloped' or more euphemistically 'developing'. They all have to become 'developed' to be worthy. To succeed we all have to forge ahead or be ruthlessly sidelined. This is the norm. Competition is the tool that enables the segregation of the winners from the rest. Comparisons between children and grading some as better than others has perhaps been always there. But never before has it become the determining principle for success. In the process it has grown disproportionately judgmental and seriously undermined the self-respect of the so-called losers of the race, in other words, the other half.

When we as parents do not find anything wrong about this kind of competition judging the worth of our children, we should have no qualms about this aspect taking over all other spheres of our life. The resultant world will be an illustration of Charles Darwin's principle of 'the survival of the fittest'. If this sounds like an unwarranted exaggeration, all we have to do is to open our eyes to the reality around us. Take sports for instance, games have always been associated with fun and relaxation. Today however we will be lucky if any match stops short of a grim battle. The behaviour of sports fans and the reporting in the media stand witness to the fact that every match is serious business. The overflowing emotions expressed when any country wins an international tournament is testimony to the worth attached to it. I remember

One of my University teachers mentioning India's World Cup cricket win as one of the few moments of glory restored to the country in his living memory. This was expressed in the context of a discussion on self-respect and pride and making India a better place. The teacher was no doubt young, but was that the moment one would choose to ascribe as a nation's worth? If winning the game restores the self-respect, does losing mean we become less worthy as a people? But these are true moments describing reality as it exists. These are the ends to which we have stretched concepts like competition. People sound as if they are baying for blood in those sports stadiums and what is more terrible is it all being considered normal, or even worse, natural. The story will be the same in the areas of education, industry, and business. The dividing lines have become razor sharp and the competition cutthroat. Any attempt to reverse the process has to take a fundamental step back.

We have to start looking at how anything can be termed worthwhile, sustainable in itself, and not by comparison. This may seem strange to our minds seduced by the Western logic and thinking. Our culture has long taught us to value a thing on its own merit and not simply by external measures. To arrive at it we have to first put aside the belief that any race can be fair .An attempt to justify the reasons for failure is self-defeating. We need to analyse the causes of a failed attempt, if there is a hope of correction, of doing better, of eventually one day achieving the goal. When these conditions are not going to be fulfilled, we cannot put the losers back in the race. They cannot reclaim a position which by definition does not exist. The race is only to the swift. The rest do not qualify. The losers have no choice but to search for an alternative. Let me tell you a story which may help in pointing a direction towards the alternative.

A Social Scientist from the West goes on an exploration to the 'underdeveloped' half of the globe in the hope that he can persuade them to join the path of prosperity. In his travels he comes across a native resting along a river bank in the middle of the day. Eager to share his vision, the scientist describes the comforts and glories of his country. On learning that the native is a fisherman, he assures him that he too can go up in the world by modernising the equipment and importing new technology, he can treble his catch, stretch his working hours and collect a bounty. An added bonus will be the subsidiary industries that will spring up due to the increased activities which will ultimately transform the sleepy village. Once he has succeeded the native can afford to travel in luxury to some remote island and relax. The bewildered native had only this to say 'but that was what I was doing when you found me'.

The lesson to be learnt is that our children need not be superlative runners for securing a good life. This is not an endorsement for sloth and idleness. Hard work and focus are essential for achieving any goal but the goal should be spurred by inspiration from within and not by the external catalyst, competition. If we want to become better for ourselves, the measure of excellence resides within. The other half is not separate from us. When we understand and acknowledge this, there will be no race.

Before you get me wrong and put me into the camp of the rat-racing, compulsive, play-to-win competitor, let me make one thing clear. Yes, I believe that competition (as it is practiced in most arenas) is ultimately harmful for the greater good of society. Having said that, I must also clarify my confusion. To my mind, competition is the urge to get ahead at the cost of another. It is the intent and the act of getting ahead at all costs, wanting to be better than the next person. It is a constant comparison with others, judging one's work and ideas by what the next person does, meeting not an absolute standard but a relative one–a scale in which best is only measurable by what the worst is.

Okay, so competition of this kind, I agree, can be detrimental to real learning and to a child's sense of self-worth. But, to repeat the question–is all competition bad?

In most areas of education, and of life's other activities, one may judge one's performance by a range of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Satisfaction, the pleasure of a job well done, the gaining of knowledge of some kind–these are the intrinsic rewards. Payment and recognition, among other things, are the extrinsic rewards. In most areas of activity, good work receives a direct compensation that does not necessarily depend on comparison. There are certain expectations–a building must be designed for a specific purpose and must be built to serve that purpose. If the builder and architect meet those basic requirements, they are rewarded. In order to become that builder or architect, the student studies a set syllabus, learns certain laws of physics and aesthetics, and conforms to those basic requirements in applying the knowledge.

Therefore one might argue that even in the absence of comparative (or relative) criteria, good work in such areas can be judged by some absolute "objective" standards. A student must satisfy herself of the depth and range of her knowledge, and must demonstrate ability to apply it, and that is sufficient, for both the student and the teacher. Such a student, in order to get a job (or to pass an examination) simply needs to demonstrate this knowledge and ability.

So even in the absence of competition, it is possible for a teacher to evaluate the student's progress in learning. Marks awarded need not be compared for a student to feel good that he or she has "done well". That we do compare, is a different matter, one that has much to do with socio-economic and cultural pressures.

All the forums for the arts depend–by their very nature–on catching someone's eye or ear. Recognition–and therefore reward–depends on how well a piece of art stands up against several others. Merit is relative. One can earn a living in the arts only if one is judged "good" in relation to everything else there is. And of course one can be judged "good" or "bad" only when one's work is placed among others, in front of an audience. Just as one applies for a job and must meet some objective criteria to do obtain the job, an artist succeeds only if he or she passes scrutiny and meets some not-so-objective criteria set by the public. For the artistic imagination to grow and blossom, and for the art to become a source of livelihood, it needs that response from the audience.

Unfortunately, artists [and artistes] generally cannot make a living without societal sponsorship of some kind. This societal sponsorship–whether it is in the form of appreciative audiences that pay for the work, or grants-in-aid–is based on how "good" the artist's work is. These judgements are based on the number of awards an artist has won, or the kinds of forums where the artist has participated, or the level of visibility the artist has achieved. Such visibility is gained, in these days, only by consciously placing one's work in the public eye–through publication (competitive) for writers, or performance (competitive festivals) for musicians, dancers and actors, or exhibits (again, competitive selection) by artists. The art does not exist without this public acknowledgment; it is not like the architect's building, which exists no matter what, even if no one lives in it. One might argue that art of true merit (however that may be determined) will always find a way to survive, to become part of the culture it is created within. One might also argue that a true artist will continue to create whether or not society acknowledges him or her. But it is also true that lack of recognition of such art is as much a society's loss as it is the artist's.

So how does one nurture the artist in the absence of competition? For to succeed, not only must the artist be "the best he can" (sufficient in most other arenas) but also seen to be "better than the others". That's the contradiction. Of course, the art itself has an inherent worth. So many centuries after the Bard we still recognize his genius, we have no need to compare him with anyone else to enjoy him. But to establish that reputation, to become associated with work of value, one must make the effort to secure a place in the public eye.

As a writer, I find that if I remain outside competition, there is no way for my work to gain an audience. Even patently non-competitive publishing operates on a comparative basis. So while I might strive to be "the best I can" and remain committed to my own creative voice, needing no other to push against or race past, I still need to convince others that my work needs to be listened to, that it is worth spending time on. All it takes is one large prize, one big nod from a "value stamper" and then I do not need to compete any more. I can stand on my own, judged only by the level of interest I generate in my work. But those early years of entering "competitions" are necessary in order to gain that space.

Denying the artistically inclined child that pathway to making her art "work" for her may in effect deny her the opportunity to create valuable work. And the products of her work will surely enrich her life and perhaps that of her public at large. Art enriches us all, both in its practice and in its participation. All children must have access to that joy, whether or not they make it their life's work. But when a child shows an inclination to pursue art beyond mere enjoyment, as a vocation, then it is important for teachers and parents to try to help that child find pathways to making a life in art.

It is important to recognize here that the competitive element enters only when seeking the space to practice the art as a professional. For a child--or adult--to actually engage in the artistic pursuit, and to achieve a personal level of excellence, competition is neither necessary nor desirable.

Being and Becoming

"I’m not joking, I’m serious. Why should I try to improve? I’m all right. I’m happy with myself."

"Look I’m dead serious. Why can’t I just be? Why should I keep trying to become this or that?"

"But I don’t want to progress. I just want to be as I am."

"Why don't you say instead that I’m satisfied--something that very few people are nowadays. I’m saying I’m happy, satisfied and you feel I shouldn’t be that!? Why should I feel dissatisfied with myself? Why should I believe that I’m wanting. Wanting to improve is accompanied by a feeling of being wanting, of being not satisfied with oneself, a feeling of anxiety followed by strife. It doesn’t necessarily bring satisfaction but increases dis-satisfaction."

"Well, I could just be, just doing whatever I am doing, and try to be good or happy --- what’s wrong with that? Why must I want to improve or progress or succeed? I see so many people who have the best of everything for themselves and their next two generations but they’re still trying to do improve and as a consequence have no time to appreciate the lovely things that they have. What’s the point of that? We need to consider whether our need to improve is not being exploited and taken way beyond its proper domain?"

"Even if you disagree with my example, which is not really as extreme as you make it out to be, it does not detract from what I’m saying."

"For that I don’t need to compete. I need to do whatever I choose to do to the best of my ability."

"Neither can competition tell me whether I am good enough. It can only tell me whether I compare well with others. Only when I am or am not able to do some work to my satisfaction can I know whether I am good enough or truly competent. Besides, can I do anything more than my best --- whether or not I compare well? Then if I’ve done my best and don’t compare well, I still have the satisfaction that I’ve done my best and also the information that I need to work harder. But if I’ve set out with competition as my goal, I feel frustrated and defeated if I don’t compare well and end up rejoicing over someone else’s defeat if I do compare well. Neither is very good for me."

"One could take the trouble to explain the criteria for acceptability rather take the easy way out and say it should be like or better than so-and-so’s work, and that, only if the person has a problem setting up their own standards. Also ask the person if they could improve upon the work that has been done. Appeal to their sense of satisfaction, pride or fulfillment in their own work instead of measuring up to someone else’s criteria of satisfaction."

"I’m talking of an alternate mode of existence. Where one is concerned with what one is doing and the quality of that work. To be open and attentive to the work but not overly concerned with whether it will lead to progress. If we are concerned primarily with doing one’s best and doing work of quality, there is a chance that the extrinsic rewards will follow and if they don’t it wouldn’t matter so much. You still have the satisfaction of knowing you did what was required and gave it your best."

"What I am saying is that there is a time when it makes sense to be focussed but not always. Certainly it does not help to be focussed on one thing all the time. Looking in a particular direction, in your case at progress, would mean that you are not open to anything that you are not looking for. That might mean missing other things. For example when one is looking for a key, one looks at everything else that one comes across during the search as not-key and does not see it for what it is in itself. Thus we miss chancing upon important things, that are not what we are looking for."

" I feel that there are two kinds of learning: The quantitative and the qualitative. Quantitative learning is learning within one’s framework or level of competence. The quantitative learning requires one to be focussed and it is an area where the agent is in charge. In the case of qualitative learning one is not the agent, nor is one in charge. Therefore it does not help to be focussed. One needs to be open and attentive but not too focussed or directed. Look at how qualitative learning occurs. Qualitative learning is transcending one’s existing framework, a leap into something new and unknown. It takes us into a new level. When we are too focussed we stay within the same level--we may improve quantitatively--but when we open ourselves by being attentive but not focussed there is the possibility of a jump to another level."

" But if you’re trying to learn it, in a sense you already know it. Otherwise how could you be trying to learn it? But if you know it then it is not new, so in a sense you’ve learnt nothing. This is the Platonic paradox of learning: you cannot ever learn anything new. For how can you go looking for that which you do not know and if you discover it how will you recognize it if in a sense you don’t know it? I think that what I am suggesting may just might be the solution to the Platonic paradox. It is appropriate that the alternative is also a paradox. That only when I give up trying to learn, can I really learn. In striving to become, one shuts out everything but what one is looking for, whereas without striving one opens out to so much more because one is less focussed and therefore receptive to the unknown, the unexpected. Busyness and striving to progress shuts out possibilities because one is too focussed."

"I’m not saying we don’t work hard or put in effort. That’s not at all what I’m saying. On the contrary we have to study, work hard, prepare but we cannot will or choose learning beyond that. That happens but is not within our grasp, choice or subject to our decision. The break-through, the insight, the understanding cannot be forced at will as even the greatest poets, writers, thinkers or scientists will tell you. Yet the insight, the understanding comes only to the serious thinker, writer and scientist because in their case alone was the preparation adequate. It is not effort or the decision that achieved the break-through, because the effort while necessary is not sufficient. So what we can choose is to put in the necessary effort but not determine whether it will yield results. Insights, understanding, qualitative leaps in learning cannot be willed. We may then acquire more but don’t necessarily grow in the sense that really matters. One does not want to deny the importance of quantitative learning --- that is, learning more this or that --- but one wants to bring back qualitative learning, which is not merely learning a little more of something. It is a change in the level of learning and/or understanding. A seed can become bigger and fatter but if it doesn’t, at some point, begin to put out leaves and subsequently become a tree but merely continues to grow in size we would say that it is a semblance of growth, not real growth. In fully being in the moment, without expectation or awaiting anything we give to the moment all that we can give or get. We don’t block out things that are unexpected because we are tuned in, waiting for one particular thing. Like when we are trying to get to a particular place we miss everything else, even the beautiful scenes that we come across on the way because of our wanting to reach our destination. "

"Oh but there is. When we try to possess, own what cannot be owned or possessed, that’s when things go wrong. Quality is the price we pay for progress. You see in our craze for progress the quality of our work, of things and even our life is deteriorating. Nowadays no one sits down to write a novel or a short story. Everyone wants to write a best seller. No one wants to make a film; they want to make a box-office hit. No longer do people bother to think clearly about what is it that they want to say through the book or film, but are very clear that they want success. We must only do our best and be clear about whatever we have to do and not be focussed on trying to progress or succeed."

"What I’m trying to point out is that no one can will or force success. So aiming for it is useless. Somewhere in trying to get away from deterministic, fatalistic thinking we have forgotten that while we are agents, we are also patients --to whom things happen, things that are outside our control. That does not make us any less responsible for our actions but it acknowledges another truth of our lives: that we do not exercise total control over it. In our single-minded pursuit of success we try to ensure what cannot be ensured and thus go beyond being responsible. We sometimes even start to become irresponsible as we resort to unfair means to secure what is legitimately not within our power to secure. "

" I can see that that you are unable to shake off a feeling of smugness, complacency and/or laziness in the absence of strife. I don’t seem to be able to convince you that it is a less satisfying way of living life. Is living life to its fullest any less active than a life of craving to have more? Is it wrong to be satisfied with what one has and to not want anything more?"

"That could be because I’m myself not fully clear and therefore not able to explain it any better. But let my inadequacy not deter you from trying to discover and understand what a qualitative, non-acquisitive mode of learning and living might mean. Open yourself to moving out of the acquisitive, measurable, infinitely improvable way that we’ve accepted as the only way. Come, let us explore it together and then we might find ourselves clearer about it."

THIS happened a long time ago, I was young (not more than ten I think) and my father was still alive, but the incident remains freshly etched in my mind as if it happened yesterday. After a long and tiring day of shifting into a new house we were laying the carpet. Somehow it just wasn’t setting right. After a while, in exasperation I said, "Let it be. It’s only a little askew, no one will notice it." My father said, "Probably no one else will but you will. You know it isn't straight."

There were two things I learnt that day. One--nothing but the best will do. Two--ultimately one answers to oneself or works for one’s own satisfaction. In a sense, nothing else matters.

*******

Competition is good for those who win, perhaps, and bad for those who lose. But, can you know before hand who will win and who will lose? And, would you really like to be a winner when you know that for you to win someone else must lose. We rejected competition for this reason. It did not seem right to accept a victory that depended on someone else losing.

Our rejection of competition does not remain a vague background philosophy but is incorporated into our way of learning and teaching. Through the years we have acquired a hands-on, nuts and bolts understanding of it. For us at CFL it has become a way of life that gives us new insights into learning and teaching without any sacrifice of quality or stopping us or our children from striving for excellence. Here are a few snap-shots of how children were taught or taught us how to strive for excellence without competition.

D was a very hyperactive, restless three-year-old child. Seldom seemed to settle down to anything except one-to-one story telling sessions. One day I observed her. She replaced the mat she was sitting on. Actually dumped it. Almost walked away, then turned and looked at it. Went back, picked it up and folded it properly before replacing it. Again almost walked away, then returned, took out the mat below, which had also been untidily folded. She refolded it neatly and replaced it. Looked with satisfaction at the neat pile and then walked away. She hadn’t needed anyone to tell her to do it right except her own innate idea of neatness, of order. Maybe we confuse the child and disturb/upset this inner sense of order/perfection when we interfere with it. By praising it if it is done or criticising it when it is not. As a result the child does it only if told or supervised or praised. Striving for perfection for one’s own self becomes distorted to working for approval or grades.

"What are we going to do today?" the child asked. "What would you like to do or learn today?" asked the teacher. "I would like to play with the blocks," she said. "Is there something specific that you have in mind or will you decide as you go along?" asked the teacher. "You know teacher, yesterday I saw X looking at a booklet in the box of blocks and making designs of buildings. I would like to do that." She went off to do that. I kept an eye on her to see how she’d progress. Things went smoothly at first and then after a while she seemed as if she had a problem. She didn’t seem happy with whatever it was that she was attempting. She took the top part apart at least five or six times. At the next try she got it. She looked at it carefully for a while then looked around to see if someone was observing. I pretended as if I hadn’t seen a thing. She looked at her creation again. Then took it apart, packed up the blocks, replaced them and went off with an air of quiet satisfaction.

She had worked to get the design to her satisfaction; she had worked hard and with a lot of concentration. She had not shown it to anyone yet her satisfaction was obvious. No competition, no pressure, no appreciation and striving for excellence in her own terms. Maybe she was that kind of person. Maybe it was because she had chosen what to do and knew what she wanted to do. The point is that people do strive for excellence without prompting or competition--especially when they have chosen what they have to do. For, then it is meaningful to them.

N and M played carroms everyday, for hours on an end, and the point of the game was to win the maximum number of games. We noticed that while they played everyday and very seriously, there was minimal improvement. Their point seemed to be to win rather than to improve. One day Rusveen, a teacher of CFL, sat down with them to play a game. That was greeted with great joy. I don’t remember who won the game but after the game Rusveen sat down to practice her rebound shots. N and M asked her why she was doing that and she explained, almost absent-mindedly as she concentrated on what she was doing, that since she had failed to connect and pocket enough coins whenever it involved a rebound shot she needed to practice that particular shot. N and M watched quite intrigued as she set the coins in the same position time after time and practiced pocketing them. After a while they got bored and set up another board and started another game. Yet one could see that they kept an eye on Rusveen as she sat and continued to practice.

The next day she was back at the practice and this continued for about four or five days for an hour or an hour and a half each day, till she was able to pocket it with an 85-90% success rate. She said nothing to teach the boys, except to answer the questions they put to her. After perfecting the rebound shot she went on to practice another shot. Sometime in between we noticed that N and M started practicing particular shots that they needed to improve their game. After a while we noticed that they played the game less often but worked more often to improve their game. Their thrill was to reach the point when they could be 90% sure that they could pocket the coin from a particular position. Needless to say their game improved considerably but we noticed that this way of learning spilled over and was transferred to other areas of learning. In Mathematics, they worked at one type of sums till they could do them with reasonable ease, speed and accuracy. In setting sums for each other their understanding of the sums deepened as they discovered the different variations and levels of sums in a particular chapter.

People say whatever else you change, games cannot be learnt well without competition. At CFL several batches of children have learnt to excel in games of their choice without competition being the main motivator. A girl went to join the state women’s cricket team and one of the boys made it to the state karate team. If more didn’t make it, the factors were different and not the lack of motivation or skill.

We see it as an important part of our job, as alternative education system, to provide alternative frames and goals and not unquestioningly accept imperfect, harmful ways of doing things. One way in which one can influence the game is by changing what one will evaluate. We evaluate games for team spirit, fair play and playing a better game not only the points or goals scored. This does influence what the children pay importance to in a game.

Other interactions in the classroom shift the emphasis from competition, grades or rank to self - satisfaction. A child brings his work to the teacher, " See teacher, I’ve finished my work. Is it nice?" The teacher looking at the work carefully, "What do you think?" "Yes it is nice." Looks at the drawing some more. Teacher asks, "So you are satisfied with it or do you feel something can be improved?" "Maybe I should improve this hand here. Wait, I’ll do it and bring it back." Rushes to his place and gets busy correcting it. Comes back a few minutes later to the teacher, "Now is it okay?" "What do you think? Are you satisfied with it? Or do you feel something can still be improved?" "Well, perhaps the colouring still needs to be touched up, I’ll work on that." Goes back to his place and works on it some more. After some time of concentrated work, gets up to come to the teacher. Walks slowly forward still carefully examining his painting. Stops. Returns to his place. One can see him redoing something else. Finishes it. Holds it up. Looks at it for a while. Slowly comes forward still looking at his work, then holds it out to the teacher. Teacher looks at it. Notes the changes made. Looks up and asks, "Are you satisfied now or do you feel there is still something that you want to improve?" "No, teacher. I think it is good now." Walks off with a happy grin.

At other times when a child brings his/her work for correction, after carefully correcting the work, the teacher would direct the child’s attention to the corrections. "What is the mistake here? Lack of understanding, inability to recall all the points or in the writing of your answer?" OR " What do you think needs attention to improve the quality of the work --- spellings, grammar, punctuation or something else?"

Once the child is able to see their mistake and recognize the elements that go into good work, they do consciously try to improve it. Not straight away, needing reminders initially, but after a while. Clearly stated goals with specific criteria help children recognize what is good work rather than comparing with the marks that another person has got. We try to specify what we are looking for while giving the exercise. For example, in an essay or answer requiring their personal opinion, we’d tell them that whatever their answer (however unconventional) it must be supported with arguments and/or facts. This helps them understand what is required and they don’t need to second guess what is it that the teacher is looking for.

All this helps them to some extent be in charge of their learning and progress. It also enables them to assess their own work fairly accurately. In their self-assessments forms it is not unusual for children to write "I could have done better if I had learnt my spellings." Or, "I did not work hard enough."

We started by rejecting competition but we found that we could not dismiss comparisons so easily. The question before us was could we disassociate comparisons from competition and/or disinvest it from the linkages with competition? Comparisons are the basis of differentiation. We found comparisons natural and deep-rooted into our way of perceiving things. It is often the basis of creative and imaginative thinking. We did avoid comparisons between people, between children but did not find it necessary to do away with it.

Comparisons did enable one to see the quality difference and thus became the basis for improvement. We redirected children to comparing their own work with their earlier work to see if any improvement was possible. This helped avoid competition and what helped further was the fact that seldom were any children given the same work, so making comparisons between each other was difficult. We also spoke to the children about the uniqueness of each person and in time this helped them to never even feel the need for comparing.

Initially when we adopted the co-operative mode in place of competition we went overboard with it. We then found that it served to make some children lazy and/or over-dependent on others. Some others did not become lazy but lacked the confidence or preparation to do some of the basic tasks individually. Isolated from their group, they found themselves handicapped in doing some activities because in the group someone else had taken on that task during the learning stage. We realized the need to balance between cooperative, group work and individual work. We could not afford to make children individually incompetent and /or lacking in confidence. While teaching basics skills there were times when the children did group work but we insisted upon enough individual work to ensure that each child could individually read, write, calculate, sing or do any of the other activities confidently alone.

While for a lot of people competition is inevitable/unavoidable, at CFL we are clear that a competitive way of life is not our way of life. The CFL philosophy is well expressed in this song that we sing.

"Do what you do, do well child,

Do what you do, do well

Give your love and all of your heart

And do what you do, do well."