Unit 2 The Constitution and Citizenship, pp.40–63, + Unit 5 ch.3, pp.165–172 (~16%): 1973 Constitution and its key principles, separation of powers, Dicey's rule of law, classification of rights (civil/political/economic/social), UDHR 1948, CRC 1989, Article 25-A, civil society "to limit and control the power of the state", a nine-step advocacy method, pupils asked to audit whether their own rights are met
One board asks pupils to judge their own government
Sindh's assessment demands evaluation where other boards demand reproduction: pupils are asked to rate how well the current government is fulfilling its purpose, and to critically evaluate the state of human rights in Pakistan. This is the corpus's strongest counter-case to the assessment-demand argument, and it shows the pattern elsewhere is a choice rather than a necessity.
The demand is unusual because of its object. Sindh's Social Studies 7 asks pupils to rate how well the current government is fulfilling its purpose, and to evaluate critically the state of human rights in Pakistan — questions about the government the pupil actually lives under, set inside the constitutional unit at pp. 40–63. Class 6 already runs substantial civic content at 3.7 tokens per thousand. This is the study's strongest counter-case to its own assessment-demand argument: what other boards do is a choice, not a constraint, because one board does otherwise on the same shelf.
What the books say
Each entry below is the catalogue's own record for that book on that
axis, printed as it stands. Pages marked PDF p. are counted from the first page of the scanned file, which is how most of this corpus was read; pages marked printed p. are the folio printed on the paper. The two differ by however many unnumbered cover leaves a volume carries, so the label matters when you go to check.
3.7/1k with substantial civic content — consistent with this lens's existing finding that Sindh is the only board teaching citizenship as a practice.
Boards and confidence
Sindh high confidence
Confidence reflects the evidence tier this rests on. High means native or English-medium text verified by exact string match; medium means it depends partly on Urdu-medium material read at theme grade, or on an absence. See the method.
Source
Sindh Social Studies 7, 2017 edition — PDF p. 40; Sindh Social Studies 6, 2016 edition
Cite this finding
Textbook Evidence Project, “One board asks pupils to judge their own government”. Evidence from 2 textbooks (Sindh). Corpus version 210 records. Retrieved from https://textbookevidence.com/findings/evaluate-your-government/
Two citations are appropriate here, not one. The line above cites this finding. If you are quoting the textbook passage itself, cite the book — its full bibliographic record, edition and approval reference is on its own page, linked from each evidence entry above — and say that you found it here.
Challenge this finding
This is a claim about a printed book, so it is checkable, and it should be checked. If the citation is wrong, the edition is misidentified, the passage is quoted unfairly, or the finding does not survive its own evidence, that is worth reporting and it will be acted on whether or not the correction is convenient for the argument. Corrections are logged publicly in the corrections log; this applies fully to the boards themselves.
Related findings
The same event, taught two opposite ways, in the same school year
Inquiry
1971 is narrated three different ways, and only one board names the surrender
History
One explanation for 1971 survives in every board across twenty years of editions
Othering
No woman appears as an agent of knowledge anywhere in the corpus
Gender