Dr Samina Luthfa, professor in the Department of Sociology at Dhaka University, speaks with Monorom Polok of The Daily Star about the contents of national curriculum textbooks, their revisions, and possible impact on students.
The Class-7 Home Economics textbook has recently drawn criticism for the way it presented girls’ appearance and gender roles. What concerns you most about this content?
My first concern is that Home Economics itself has traditionally been treated as a highly gendered subject. It is almost always taught to girls, while boys are excluded, even though household management is a life skill that everyone should learn. If the subject is to remain in the curriculum, it should be compulsory for both boys and girls. Learning how to manage a household or do basic stitching is not something to be ashamed of. The fact that boys are generally not taught these only reinforces unequal gender roles in society.
I am also deeply concerned by the textbook’s advice telling girls what to wear based on their body shape or skin complexion. Such prescriptions amount to body shaming. They suggest that certain skin tones or body types are more attractive than others, which can seriously undermine young girls’ confidence and reinforce what we call the “beauty myth”. This kind of content should be removed entirely. And, textbook writers should involve experts from the social sciences and gender studies so that these kinds of insensitive messages are identified before publication.
How does teaching these ideas at a young age reinforce the culture of body shaming in society?
When children are taught that only certain complexions or body types are beautiful, they begin comparing themselves against those standards from an early age. That comparison can have a profoundly negative impact on their confidence and identity formation later on. Given how widespread body shaming already is, particularly on digital platforms, educational materials should promote inclusivity rather than reinforce harmful stereotypes.
You were directly involved with the 2024 textbook revision process. Were you aware of this change? What were the biggest challenges you encountered?
It is important to note that my role did not involve the Home Economics textbook review; instead, I led the social sciences group. Our committee was a diverse collective, featuring sociologists, anthropologists, and specialists in gender, media, archaeology, and Islamic history. Together, we meticulously examined every social science text from Classes 2 through 12, engaging in rigorous debate to determine which sections should be retained, excised, or fundamentally revised. These expert committees functioned primarily to evaluate current material rather than authoring new works. After reaching a consensus on necessary changes, we produced revised drafts that reflected the collective approval of all committee members.
One challenge involved terminology relating to indigenous communities. The expert committee wanted to replace the phrase “small ethnic groups” with “Indigenous”, but government officials objected because the constitutional wording was different. Eventually, we agreed to use the term “different ethnic groups” instead, ensuring that the word “small” was removed altogether.
I was also part of the overall coordination committee that brought together around 57 experts alongside NCTB officials. Unfortunately, after considerable controversy and online pressure, the Ministry of Education dissolved the committee. That, in my view, was a major setback. I think one of the interim government’s earliest failures was repeatedly retreating in the face of pressure. That established a pattern of compromising decisions instead of standing by expert recommendations.
We also argued strongly that education researchers should be included at every stage of textbook development. Subject specialists can judge factual accuracy, but education researchers understand whether content is developmentally appropriate for children of different ages. Another issue we repeatedly raised concerned the poor quality of textbook printing. Contracts may specify higher-quality paper, but in practice the required standards are often ignored. We believed corruption surrounding textbook printing and procurement was a serious problem.
What changes did the expert committee actually recommend, and what do you see as the biggest challenge facing NCTB today?
We made several content revisions. For example, we ensured that works by recognised researchers on the Language Movement were included where appropriate. We added material on Nawab Faizunnesa, included references to Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, and made other modest corrections to improve representation and historical balance. These were not sweeping ideological changes but measured revisions based on evidence.
We also felt that including the July uprising in textbooks for very young children may not be appropriate because it is a recent and highly violent event. We believed students should study it later, perhaps in Classes 8 or 9, when they are better able to understand it in context.
In my view, the biggest challenge facing NCTB is not the experts. It is the bureaucracy within the institution and the nexus between sections of that bureaucracy and business syndicates. That remains the most serious structural problem.
Textbooks in Bangladesh are often revised whenever governments change. What impact does this have on education, and how should the revision process be handled?
I believe this is a very harmful practice, particularly for children. Imagine a student learning one version of history in primary school and then encountering an entirely different version a few years later because the government has changed. That creates confusion and undermines a child’s understanding of the country’s past. If we could simply acknowledge historical contributions regardless of political affiliation, many of these unnecessary revisions could be avoided.
Besides, textbook development should be carried out through expert committees. History books require historians, and even within history there are specialists for different periods. Similarly, every subject should be reviewed by experts in that field. However, the responsibility for implementing their recommendations lies with the bureaucracy. As I said before, when we revised textbooks in 2024, NCTB formed expert committees comprising university teachers and specialists. However, I do not know what happened after our work was completed.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
