District Institutes of Education and Training - Teacher Education

More documents

Recommendations

Info

District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States 7.7 Tensions for action-reflection 7.7.1 Systemic instability Over the life of the project, various systemic changes were taking place in both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh that impacted on the DIETs, and therefore on professional development activities in the research project, in various ways. Although the external influences were different across the DIETs, they all resulted in an unstable environment for the action-reflection cycle. In Masuda DIET, it took a year to resolve the Lok Jumbish funding crisis and this left staff in limbo, which did not encourage them to invest heavily in making efforts in an action-reflection cycle they were unsure they would be able to see through. As resolution took place, and the DIET reverted to a normal government DIET status, people who had initiated the time management project began to leave and the DIET was so severely understaffed no further action research steps could be contemplated. At the same time, the State government suspended preservice training courses which meant that staff had to be redeployed back in schools or in other DIETs. In Madhya Pradesh, institutional reform made major changes to arrangements for elementary education by decentralising management to the District level. The whole process was fraught with uncertainty for DIET staff since little information was available to them about their futures. As in Masuda, this did not provide a very conducive environment for engaging in action-reflection, although Indore DIET in particular was very enthusiastic about doing action research. As decentralisation progressed, new responsibilities came to the DIET, in the shape of drawing up the District’s five year plan and gathering base line data to inform that plan. This did not allow them further time to engage in further action research steps, and in this way processes of reflection that had tentatively begun to emerge at the DIET level were overwhelmed by new imperatives for action that were generated by systemic reform. 7.7.2 Leadership The Principal’s leadership in the collaborative action research work was highly influential. In the prevailing culture of bureaucratic administration, DIET staff are used to following orders and this was no different when it came to initiating and following through action research. Unless the Principal supported this strand of activity, DIET staff were not able to prioritise it within their working routines. Much also depended on the Principal’s vision of the DIET and its role in the District. In Udaipur DIET the first in-charge Principal was not academically inclined and this made it difficult for her to pick up on the project’s potential to DFID 151
District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States develop this aspect of the DIET’s work. In Masuda by contrast the Principal fully saw a role for the project team and ensured that the staff was involved and the work moved forward. In Indore DIET, the in-charge Principal also facilitated staff members’ involvement but did not participate himself; in Dhar DIET the incharge Principal participated fully and encouraged others to do so. The Santrampur Principal offered some support to the project team in doing what he saw as the team’s research, but did not encourage his staff to get involved. The stance of the Principal was a major factor in shaping the level of ownership each DIET developed towards the action research projects and clearly impacted on time made available and commitment to following through processes. The culture of orders in the bureaucratic system also presented logistical barriers to the DIET staff. Orders were frequently issued without warning and the DIET was expected to respond immediately, which meant that other planned activities took lower priority. Since the research was not governed by hierarchical orders, and depended on having the will and finding the time, accountability to the research process was very low compared with accountability to the apex organisation - even though staff valued the research process and the opportunities it was affording staff for professional growth. 7.7.3 Issues of autonomy and agency The collaborative action research projects made small beginnings in demonstrating to DIET staff that they had the autonomy to carry out research, and use findings to inform the DIET so it could understand and respond to the District’s needs. In this respect, this work began to stimulate a sense of agency that had not been pronounced before the collaboration. As this sense of agency grew, so too did concerns about how findings could be fitted into the framework of programmes designed at the State level. In Madhya Pradesh this issue was in many respects resolved by institutional reforms that put the DIET charge of developing its own action programme, ending the days of centralisation when this was done by the apex body. Decentralisation in Rajasthan remained incomplete. In this respect, action research had more potential in Madhya Pradesh, since the wider context was also changing in ways that supported the development of autonomy and agency, and immediate application of findings at the source of data generation. The collaborative projects were also a reminder that the emergence of autonomy and agency had to be nurtured and encouraged as part of a development process. Teacher educators had become used to externalising the locus of accountability for concerns and using this as a legitimation for low programme impact. The will to make changes could not be taken for granted: rather, with some staff, cultivating 152 DFID
Page 1 and 2:
DFID’s headquarters are located a
Page 3 and 4:
District Institutes of Education an
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124: District Institutes of Education an
Page 173: District Institutes of Education an
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257:
show all

District Institutes of Education and Training - Teacher Education

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?