Educating the educators

 

Madhav Chavan in his article on reforming primary education (‘Wiping the slate clean’, IE, June 25) has asked the government to think afresh the Right to Education Bill as well as the current Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme. Here, I focus on our methods to train teachers. The devastating impact of norms-based funding is most evident in this arena. Our pre-service teacher education system need a major overhaul. Country-wide, teacher-training programmes are offered increasingly by private (self-financed) institutions which have seen an exponential growth in the last decade. Neither the Centre nor the state governments have been able to regulate the quality of new institutions. Most of them are small teaching or diploma giving shops without qualified faculty. There is little transparency in the sanctioning process leading to suspicion about the way permissions were given. Educationists, administrators and people who run schools (government and private) admit that the quality of teachers coming out of these institutions is extremely poor.

 

As a result we today have thousands of young people who graduated from these institutions, but ended up learning little. The impact of this is felt by our schools —the quality of teachers appointed has steadily gone down, resulting in further dilution of standards. It is a fairly well known and documented fact that many teachers who join have poor subject knowledge and the training they receive does not prepare them to work. They learn a few theories to pass examinations, have little hands-on experience of working in multi-grade schools or in classrooms where there is enormous diversity among the children. The institutions they study in does not familiarise them (leave alone prepare them) for the real situation in the thousands of schools in rural and urban areas.

 

Central to this situation is the role of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) which became a statutory body in 1993 to promote “planned and coordinated development, regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system throughout the country” (from the NCTE Act of 1993). It has both academic and regulatory functions. Its academic functions include conducting studies and recommending strategies for teacher education, promoting innovations and research in teacher education and formulating schemes and identifying recognised institutions for teacher development programmes. The regulatory functions include according recognition for teacher education institutions and courses, laying down guidelines for compliance, laying down norms for courses and minimum eligibility criteria, evolving an appraisal system and “taking all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education.” Here is a body that was created to regulate and set standards. But what really happened was quite the opposite. A committee constituted in 2007-08 to review the functioning of NCTE recommended an overhaul.

 

Given the long history of the merging of the roles of standard-setters, regulators and administrators (NCTE being a classic example) there is a need to reform the way regulatory bodies are created and administered. The recently released Yashpal Committee report on higher education is reported to have made similar observations on other regulatory bodies that ended up becoming gate keepers for vested interests, such as the AICTE and UGC. The Human Resources Development Minister needs to look at similar entities in teachers’ education.

 

India today needs an autonomous academic standard setting regime, one that is outside the direct administrative control of the ministry or its ancillary bodies like NCERT. We need one that cannot metamorphose into a government department and end up perpetuating the problem. There is a need to create a body that draws on eminent educationists, academics, practicing teachers and social activists engaged in education. This body should monitor whether standards are being adhered to and generate public pressure for compliance through periodic research-based reports on quality — not only with respect to learning outcomes in schools but also management audit of government funded institutions starting from the cluster and block level resource centres, the state councils for educational research and training and the NCERT. Developing benchmarks accessible to all should be part of the mandate of the new regulatory body.

 

There are precedents in the country. In the area of child nutrition the painstaking work done by the Right to Food campaign and the Commissioners appointed by the Supreme Court of India play a significant role in monitoring what is happening on the ground. Similarly, a process is needed to bring together independent and experienced people with a high degree of commitment and track record of working in school education.

 

Central to this is a consensus on the minimum “non-negotiable” standard for schools and pre-schools, for teacher qualification (including subject knowledge) and for student assessment processes. The government needs to guard against opting for the least common denominator and firmly advocate high standards at all levels and in all kinds of schools and institutions. A resolve from the government to make sure that even the poorest and the most disadvantaged child can access quality education —and will be taught by a qualified and trained teacher — will go a long way in doing away with the hierarchies of schools (regular schools, alternative schools) and teachers.

 

The writer heads Education Research Unit, and has worked in the education sector for almost 25 years.

 

URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/educating-the-educators/483739/

 

URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/educating-the-educators/483739/2

 

URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/educating-the-educators/483739/3