District Institutes of Education and Training - Teacher Education

District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States
no cover arrangements for teachers to be released, and cover is done in an ad hoc
way at the school level. If the dominant impression in the Education Department
is that programmes are not significantly impacting on teachers’ practices, a District
Education Officer weighing up the potential costs of training against the potential
for added value may be reluctant to be release a teacher if students suffer as a result.
Although in-service education has become widespread, no matching system has
evolved to provide cover for teachers who attend training.
Udaipur DIET had a poor relationship with the District Education office. Across
our sample, it experienced the most problems with teacher attendance at its
training programmes, with an average during the project period of only 45-50%
occupancy of in-service places. It also acknowledged that it was failing to embrace
teachers living far away from the DIET.
The Programme Advisory Committee
Statutory provision for convergence of the DIET and Education Department at
the District level was made in the stipulation of a Committee ‘for sorting out field
level problems in operationalising the DIET’ (MHRD 1989: 48), of which the
District Education Officer/ equivalent is a member. A well-functioning
Programme Advisory Committee would achieve convergence between the various
offices in elementary education to draw on all available local knowledge to develop
programmes to respond to local demand, and shape those suggested by the State
level. Relationships with this committee were cited as problematic in both
Rajasthan DIETs; Indore and Surat DIETs had good relations with the necessary
officials; while in Santrampur and Dhar the DPEP diverted issues through its
alternative structures.
In Masuda DIET the role of the Programme Advisory Committee was well
understood but there was no evidence of any activity. Convergence was achieved
through the Lok Jumbish procedures (discussed below) so this committee was not
particularly necessary. Udaipur DIET had constituted a Programme Advisory
Committee but it was not fulfilling the envisaged function of support. The
researcher at Udaipur DIET summed up her observations as follows
The DEO office and the DIET are supposed to co-ordinate with each other.
The DEO needs to attend the PAC meeting of which he is a member but he
always seems to send his deputy to these meetings. According to the DIET
staff, the DEOs and SDIs need to play a positive role. They feel these inspecting
bodies could identify the training needs from the field and bring it to the
DIET’s notice through the Committee. I feel if taken sincerely these bodies
could also become a link for the DIET to carry out a follow up of its
programmes. But unfortunately this sounds good on paper only as there is a
120 DFID