THE Union government has initiated a consultative process to reformulate the education policy. Going over the documents uploaded on the MHRD website, it is apparent that the position of teachers in our school system and the factors that contribute to low morale and motivation are not being addressed. The set of questions put out by the government does include teacher education, but it is silent on a number of important issues that are often brushed aside as administrative. It is this glaring omission that has prompted this commentary.

Equally, recent attempts by several state governments to amend the Right to Education Act (RtE Act) to do away with or modify the ‘no detention’ policy up till class VIII, give up on the pay parity of teachers in government and private schools, and introduce fresh teacher eligibility tests merit informed debate on teachers – from the time they are recruited, the responsibilities they are assigned, their autonomy (or lack of it) and the way they are managed. For example, the Government of Delhi introduced the amendments with little consultation with teachers, administrators and educationists. One is left wondering how such important legislations are being drafted without carrying out a thorough review of experience on the ground.

The 1986 education policy declared: ‘The status of the teacher reflects the socio-cultural ethos of a society; it is said that no people can rise above the level of its teachers. The government and the community should endeavour to create conditions which will help motivate and inspire teachers on constructive and creative lines. Teachers should have the freedom to innovate, to devise appropriate methods of communication and activities relevant to the needs and capabilities of and the concerns of the community… The methods of recruiting teachers will be reorganised to ensure merit, objectivity… The pay and service conditions of teachers have to be commensurate with their social and professional responsibilities and with the need to attract talent to the profession… Efforts will be made to reach the desirable objective of uniform emoluments, service conditions and grievance-removal mechanisms for teachers throughout the country…’¹ Notwithstanding the policy level commitment, the decade of the 1990s saw a range of teacher related practices that did not conform to the policy. Contract teachers were recruited in large numbers, even as in many states entry level qualifications were relaxed. Expectedly, the overall morale of the teaching community plummeted. The RtE Act tried to correct some of these anomalies – but the act itself is today under the scanner.

 

We are at the cusp of drafting a new education policy and in all probability this would be accomplished in 2016. It is in this context that one needs to revisit the question of the centrality of teachers in the public education system and their declining status over the last three or four decades. There is a large community of administrators, researchers and writers who have taken to regular ‘teacher bashing’ even as there is an equally vocal community that takes a contrary view. The purpose of this short note is to try and understand the way teachers are positioned in our system and why and how this is an important cause for concern, so that we can highlight the predicament of the teacher to those involved in the formulation of education policy.

We all know that in the struggle between quantity, quality and equity, the role of teachers is a key to turn the public system around. The experience of the last three decades and a large body of research has shown that it is no longer a matter of numbers – and that teacher effectiveness is ‘the most important school based predictor of student learning and that several consecutive years of outstanding teaching can offset the learning deficits of disadvantaged students…’² Globally, one of the key challenges being faced by many countries is related to teacher effectiveness: this includes competency (qualification/knowledge), motivation and management. Ultimately the tug of war is between the rights of children (to quality education) and the rights of teachers (working conditions) and the ability of the system to balance the two.³

 

After travel and discussions with many teachers and administrators in connection with a research study on the working conditions of elementary and secondary school teachers, the overwhelming message that comes through is that the public system looks at teachers as government servants whose primary allegiance is to the administration. She/he is not seen as a ‘teacher’ who is engaged in educating and caring for children. The unique status that teachers once allegedly enjoyed in society has gradually eroded and teachers across the country bemoan the loss of their professional identity. Equally, the way they are recruited, transferred and managed makes them vulnerable to the whims of administrators and politicians. Most importantly, teachers across India complain that they have little autonomy and their superiors in administration are happy only if they follow orders without an argument. This not only goes against the spirit of the National Curricular Framework 2005, but is especially tragic given the compelling global evidence that teacher autonomy, identity, motivation and accountability are intertwined.

 

Is this the case in all countries? A closer look at the experiences of countries like Poland, Finland, China, Singapore and Chile makes clear that the way teachers are positioned in the system is the key to success. Some core principles are followed in countries that have been able to rejuvenate the education system – namely:⁴

* Attracting the best into the teaching profession through a mix of strategies aimed at enhancing the professional identity and improving working conditions. Increasing teacher salary alone is not enough.

* Preparing teachers well, focusing equally on subject knowledge and skills needed in the classroom. Provide opportunities for need-based continuing education and training. Supporting teachers to identify their learning needs and providing timely opportunities is considered important.

* Setting clear expectations for teachers and keeping this constant. Frequent changes in expectations can have a detrimental effect on teacher morale. Equally important, set up a transparent system to enable teachers, headmasters and administrators to appraise and review their performance.

* Matching teacher’s skills with student’s needs – starting with a strong headmaster or principal who has the professional autonomy to plan for her/his school. Teachers who are led by strong and highly motivated school heads and in turn given autonomy to innovate and experiment, can do wonders in the classroom. They are both motivated and take great pride in their work.

* Involving teachers in tracking the learning of their students and supporting them to make sure each and every child is able to progress.

* Finally, ensuring a system that provides for career progress and professional growth of teachers.

 

The public education system in India is unfortunately riddled with problems. Teacher recruitment policies are ad hoc and there are long delays and gaps before a successful candidate can assume teaching duties. Even in states which have relatively transparent and fair procedures for recruitment, such as Karnataka, there is a delay of nearly six months before teachers can begin work at a school. Most states do not have a systematic or routine process for calculating the number of teachers needed, and what their specific qualifications and characteristics should be. In some states, recruitment is aligned to political interests, making teacher recruitment processes resemble political strategies. The timing of recruitment is also opaque. No wonder a significant number of court cases are related to teacher recruitment, generating additional insecurity among potential teacher candidates.

Effective teacher transfer policies are crucial for ensuring that schools have the teachers they need, while simultaneously providing teachers with mobility in their careers. Despite wide agreement on the proposition, stable and transparent teacher transfer policies are rare in India. Where they exist (as in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu), they are of recent vintage. The general situation in a majority of the states is disturbing – they are mostly ad hoc. In most states teachers complain about needing powerful connections as also having to pay bribes in order to ensure a transfer of their choice (or block one against their interest) or to manage a transfer relatively quickly. In some states political leaders are formally represented on transfer committees and transfers are often given as a reward to politically helpful teachers. In some states mass transfers are common, setting in motion a tizzy of activity among teachers.

In general, the core school team consisting of the head principal and teachers do not have any say in who should be posted to their school, whether by way of new recruitment or transfer. Unsurprisingly, in many states the teachers told us that when they need a mathematics teacher, they are given a language teacher! As a result – especially at the elementary level – teachers are expected to teach all subjects. They are not part of any decision making process – but given orders and asked to perform their ‘duties’.

 

The RtE Act says that all teachers should perform the following duties: (i) maintain regularity and punctuality in attending school; (ii) conduct and complete the curriculum; (iii) complete entire curriculum within specified time; (iv) assess the learning ability of each child and accordingly supplement additional instructions, if any, as required; (v) hold regular meetings with parents and guardians and appraise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other relevant information about the child; and (vi) perform other such duties as may be prescribed. However, translating these duties into practice in the right spirit is a challenge that is yet to be meaningfully addressed.

The inspection, feedback and support systems in most states are severely dysfunctional. The number of schools has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, thereby overwhelming the inspection and support system. Unfortunately, there are very few officers with limited resources for such tasks. The system expects teachers to ‘prove’ that all chapters listed in the syllabus for the year have been ‘taught’, and this is seen as fulfilment of their primary responsibilities. Teachers are not empowered to perform the roles that children and parents expect of them. Induction or orientation programmes are not a regular feature in any of the states. Though all positions have a ‘probationary’ period of two years, only subsequent to which the teacher is to be confirmed, this has no relevance in practice. The officials and the teachers are unable to point out any difference between what happens or is expected from the teacher during the probationary period and otherwise.

 

A little over forty per cent of government elementary schools have only one or two teachers for the elementary grades. However, the teachers are not equipped to effectively conduct multi-grade teaching despite clear policy directives at the national level. The NCF 2005 suggests considerable planning is required on the part of teachers to address multi-grade situations – however, the teacher education process still treats multi-grade situation as an anomaly.

Most teachers have yet to come to terms with several provisions stipulated by the RtE Act like ‘no detention’ and ‘no corporal punishment’. Teachers across the nine states said that such provisions had impinged on their professional rights and made their task more difficult. Both teachers and senior officials critique the no detention policy, arguing that it takes away the imperative from students to actually study. On the other hand, educationists point out that it is more the interpretation of the no detention policy that is the problem – because no detention is equated with non-assessment of learning outcomes. Though teachers have clearly cut down on corporal punishment in the classroom, this is more out of compulsion than any real belief in the concept.

The position of the head teacher is particularly vexed. All the states studied continue to have significant number of vacancies for the position of headmasters/teachers. Maintaining student lists, financial and administrative records of the school; periodic and non-periodic reporting; and liaising with the education department are some of the tasks that the headmasters are responsible for. For the last decade and a half, activities like organizing mid-day meals and overseeing construction of buildings too have emerged as major responsibilities of school heads. All of this obviously leaves little time for academic support and supervision. This problem is further compounded by the fact that most schools do not have administrative, accounting or support staff.

 

The most tragic feedback received was that those who managed our schools, provided resources and actually taught in them had little faith in the state government school system in their states. Not even one teacher or administrator or teacher educator we met in the course of the study sent their own children or grandchildren to a government school! Finally, there is a sense of disquiet across the country, a sense of despair when we talk about our schools, our teachers and the learning of our children.

And yet, in most states teachers report that they had seen improvements in their overall status and working conditions. The last two decades have witnessed significant developments in school infrastructure as well as general infrastructure (roads, communication, electricity, water). The government has also paid attention to pupil-teacher ratio, provision of teaching and learning material and availability of libraries and books. The salaries of teachers have also gone up significantly since the Sixth Pay Commission and are likely to further rise after the Seventh Pay Commission report.

 

Even as all this is important and significant, what is undeniable is that the status of the teacher has suffered erosion. Across all levels of the administration, teachers are seen as a government servant at the bottom of a hierarchical system. By virtue of their administrative role, officials exude a sense of superiority. The relationship between teachers and administrators remains contentious, with both trying to tweak the system in their favour, while student learning takes a back-seat. It is perhaps not surprising that teachers eagerly seek promotions to administrative posts.

Equally worrying is the feed-back received from every state on the attractiveness of the teaching profession: in general, school teaching no longer attracts motivated and high quality candidates. No surprise then that many of those who enter the teaching profession do so only or primarily when other avenues are not open. Adding to the dismal environment is the problem of bogus degrees and associated scandals.

At one level, it seems as if a lot has changed. All states have adopted the RtE recommended Teacher Eligibility Tests (TET). But it is not clear whether or not this helps the government recruit teachers who have mastery over their subject knowledge and their pedagogy. Moreover, in none of the nine study states was there any effort to use TET results to inform pre-service training practices, curriculum reform and to assess pre-service teacher training institutions. Very little is known about the quality of the TET itself in the different states: whether the tests accurately measure the knowledge and skills they claim to, and whether they do so consistently over time.

The ultimate test of the effectiveness of teachers is whether all the children they teach are able to reach their educational potential. Whether teachers teach in the most effective way is determined by a complex set of policies and practices. Blaming teachers is perhaps easy – what is far more difficult is to work with the system to ensure greater autonomy to schools while at the same time setting in motion a process whereby teachers, headmasters/principals and administrators can evaluate their performance and are held accountable to children.

 

What can we do to turn the system around? Global experience informs us that a combination of greater autonomy to teachers, transparent performance appraisal and need based academic support/continuing education opportunities could help. Assessing teachers only on the basis of test or examination results of students should give way to a more nuanced assessment that is anchored in the schools – with the principal or the school head taking the lead. We need a more informed and serious debate on the systemic reforms that are essential to change our education system. The consultative process for a New Education Policy could provide an excellent opportunity to address these issues – however, as of now, the issues discussed above do not seem to be on the radar of policy makers.

 

* This short commentary is based on a recent study that I led as National Fellow and Professor in NUEPA in 2014-15. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of co-authors of the research report titled ‘Teachers in the Indian education system – evidence from a 9-state study’ (forthcoming, NUEPA, 2016): Tobias Linden, Tara Beteille, Sangeeta Dey, Sangeeta Goyal and Prerna Goel Chatterjee. Needless to add, the views expressed are entirely mine.

Footnotes:

1. National Policy on Education, 1986. MHRD, GOI, paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2.

2. Emiliana Vegas and Alejandro J. Ganimian, What are the Teacher Policies in Top Performing and Rapidly Improving Education Systems? SABER-Teachers Background Paper No. 3. Washington DC, August 2011.

3. Chikondi Mpokosa and Susy Ndaruhutse. Managing Teachers: The Centrality of Teacher Management to Quality Education: Lessons from Developing Countries. CfBT and VSO, UK, 2008.

4. Vegas and Ganimian, 2011, op. cit.