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 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
District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States It also does not equip them with the pedagogical understandings they need for elementary education. Paper qualifications are seen as a guarantee of standards (personal communication, Director NCTE October 2002). An underlying theme of this recruitment norm is the idea that hard, scientific knowledge is superior to soft, practitioner wisdom. The evidence presented here illustrates the low validity of this assumption in relation to understanding teaching and learning at the elementary level; the rationales teachers have for acting the way they do (as illustrated, for example, in chapter two); and the complex processes of changing practices – all of which an effective DIET is required to do. The government procedures of transferring personnel broadly within the ‘service’ is shown here to be problematic, in that it imposes a civil service norm of generalism within a sphere that demands recognition of specific professional identities. Gujarat has set an encouraging example of reviewing the fit between the initial guidelines and its requirements, leading to a change in recruitment norms. In making permanent appointments to the DIET (so far at the level of the Lecturers) it has begun to promote the DIET as a significant educational entity which is not interchangeable with secondary schools, and for which specific professional expertise is required. While this is an encouraging movement towards seeing teacher educators as the specialists they are, there remains in all three States a gap in recruitment. The competencies and skills required of teacher educators do not form the basis of recruitment procedures (even for revised procedures initiated in Gujarat or by the Lok Jumbish). The need to base recruitment on identified competencies for DIET staff, rather than generic educational qualifications, is urgently indicated, and there is further discussion of this in chapter ten. Induction for newly appointed staff has been cursory, and opportunities for professional development are very limited. The result of this, demonstrated in our sample, has been that some staff simply did not know enough about their post and the expectations from it to engage with fulfilling an adequate role. This did not allow them to develop a stake in their work, and this hinders the emergence of the DIET as a fertile environment for the generation and application of local knowledge, innovations, or academic exchange. Recruits to a DIET are not making a minor career change. Elementary teacher educators need pedagogical understandings, social awareness, and adult educator skills that are different from those of secondary school teachers. Professional development for DIET staff once in post to help them develop those understandings and skills is a pre-requisite for DIETs if they are to take up the roles envisaged for them under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. 70 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: District Institutes of Education an
Page 91: District Institutes of Education an
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
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?