District Institutes of Education and Training - Teacher Education

District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States
had classroom management skills to try out suggested innovations in crowded
schoolrooms – which were within their purview. While they acknowledged that
their training programmes could have more impact, they did not cast themselves
in proactive roles to address this issue. The list of concerns noted above came
down to two key issues: the need to improve physical infrastructure was one, but
the paramount ‘problem’ and root cause for the failure of their hard work to yield
the expected results was teachers’ perceived unwillingness and lack of motivation
to implement training. This was summarised by a staff member in Indore:
By the time they receive training they develop a habit of teaching. After that it
doesn’t matter how many trainings we give, they will do the same once they
go back. We don’t have fundamental working conditions. We don’t have school,
classroom, duster, blackboard, drinking water. Look here in this institute, there
is so much noise here we want to talk but we can’t hear each other. In reality
near schools, colleges and hospitals there shouldn’t be any noise. We are facing
problems while talking. Until we have improved working conditions how can
we improve all the things. There are so many other factors that our approach
doesn’t work at all. The first thing is to improve this. We are doing what we can
but we don’t have confidence after doing all the things. We also face the same
problem, we are also not confident that the scheme we are giving will reach
them, and from them, the students. For SSP all the staff are working so hard
but the results it should give them are not coming. We also don’t understand
why it’s not coming. The reason is the person who has to deliver it is not right
[i.e. the teacher]. People who have been working for the last 20-25 years have
their own methods and it’s very difficult to change them (MP/IND/TT 014
4.2.99).
These ‘commonsense’ reasons served as rationales to explain perceived low levels
of implementation of training messages. In contrast with these perceptions was the
view of the majority of Surat DIET staff that the DIET did have a role to play in
addressing these concerns, along with other educational institutions in the District,
and that the DIET was there to support teachers.
3.8 Policy implications
Appropriate staffing of DIETs has been compromised by recruitment policies that
do not match individuals to job specifications. The double Master’s norm does not
emerge as a crucial qualification for elementary teacher educators. This is to some
extent recognised:
It has to be acknowledged that M Ed provides only theoretical background and
orientation in some research techniques. It does not prepare teacher educators
for educating teachers. It does not train trainers (NCTE 1998b: 53).
DFID 69