primary school teachers the twists and turns of everyday practice

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Version 20 Oct 08, edited final classroom learning. On the contrary, by assuming that the provision of standardised inputs automatically translates into meaningful classroom experiences, such policies further limit teachers’ ability to construct their own and their students’ knowledge. Conclusion 3. Teachers are appointed, trained and evaluated on the basis of administrative rather than educational logic. Until this situation is changed, learning outcomes are unlikely to improve in our primary schools. The pitfalls of basing educational policy on administrative logic should be clear from the discussion of the two conclusions presented above. If teachers do not view students’ learning—however defined—as part of, let alone central to, their professional responsibilities, then clearly the situation cannot be remedied by tweaking quantitative targets or by establishing additional administrative layers. It is imperative that policy makers realise that the field of education is not just another sector of the economy like transport or agriculture or public health. It is perhaps the only sector where outcomes depend at least as much on processes as on inputs. In other words, the best textbooks in the world will be of limited use in the hands of an incompetent teacher, whereas a talented and sensitive teacher always finds ways to catalyse students’ learning even under the most difficult of working conditions. But in order to promote competence and nurture talent among teachers, the education system needs to prioritise these aspects and operationalise them throughout the system. This means, for example, that teachers should be chosen on the basis of aptitude and interest, not only on the basis of marks. Promotions and salary increments should be awarded for effective teaching, not only on the basis of seniority. Supervision should encourage innovative practices, not punish them. And training programmes should aim to help teachers think for themselves about what they are doing, not merely to do as they are told. Most of all, these different areas of educational policy must be coordinated so that they all push teachers in the same direction, towards better teaching practices. What this means, in short, is that educational criteria need to predominate over administrative logic. But this can only begin to happen if those providing leadership in educational departments and institutions are themselves educators rather than administrators. Unfortunately, the opposite is true in India today. Conclusion 4. Educational planning must be holistic, rather than piecemeal; and based on ground reality, rather than wishful thinking. Rashmi Sharma (forthcoming) argues: ‘The fact is that any policy or plan that is oblivious to the existing reality is no more than a wish list (…) A redefinition of “policy” is clearly required in the Indian context. First of all, policy needs to address some core issues that confront government today…’. We have seen that policy announcements enjoy little leverage when the institutions responsible for policy implementation are themselves not in control, are dominated by narrow turf or profit motives, or run by bureaucrats with little understanding of educational processes. The absence of an integrated vision for educational development can be seen concretely in the absence of linkages, both horizontal and vertical, between different 68
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final institutions within the education system. As this booklet has shown, educational activities in every state are developed piecemeal by a large number of sub-systems, each responding to a different set of criteria and objectives. SSA and SCERT inservice training programmes, for example, are typically designed and operated independently of each other; and neither one draws upon the experience of nongovernment organisations. While the DIETs fall under SCERTs, BRCs and CRCs are responsible to the state SSA project. Even where vertical linkages are clearly defined, typically only the apex body in each chain has any real authority. DIETs, for example, function as subsidiaries of SCERT in each state rather than as autonomous professional institutions. The lack of linkages within the system can result in the generation of educational policy based on an idealised vision of the future which has little connection with ground realities. Because implementation is monitored on the basis of quantitative targets rather than educational outcomes, the numerous ways in which such policy fails to be translated into educationally worthwhile practice—and the reasons for this failure—are neither documented nor analysed. Conclusion 5. Primary education must be recognised as a professional field in its own right, rather than as the ‘poor relation’ within the education system: one that is allowed to exist, but denied parity in terms of status, autonomy, or resources. We mentioned earlier that the role of professional leadership within the educational system is critical to the development of policies that take a comprehensive, long-term view of teacher development. But only tortuous bureaucratic logic can result in a situation where primary school teaching experience is of little value even within the primary education sub-sector. Primary school education has yet to be seen as a separate and valid field of expertise: academic and administrative staff alike is selected for higher-level positions, even within the sector on the basis of the professional distance that they have travelled away from primary school teaching, rather than experience and demonstrated expertise within it. Thus, for example, a B.Ed or M.Ed degree is often required for senior level posts in the primary education sector, even if (as is often the case) the holder of the degree has never set foot in a primary school since he graduated from one. Not only does this increase the likelihood that the wrong people will be in charge of the sector, in many states it also means that talented primary school teachers are unable to apply for leadership positions. Do these criteria make any sense? Is it not more important that those responsible for primary education should have firsthand knowledge of the issues and constraints that primary schools face on the ground? What should a model for teacher development seek to provide? Before discussing some possible ways forward, it is important to have some conceptual clarity regarding what an integrated model for teacher development should aim to include. We turn to available literature for some answers. Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves (1992) identify four basic elements that provide a framework for understanding teacher development: • the teacher’s purpose; • the teacher as a person; • the real world context in which teachers work; and 69
Page 1 and 2:
Edited, Version 28 October 2008 PRI
Page 3 and 4:
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Tab
Page 5 and 6:
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final I W
Page 7 and 8:
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Thi
Page 9 and 10:
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final II
Page 11 and 12:
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final wan
Page 13 and 14:
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Why
Page 15 and 16:
Version 20 Oct 08, edited final all
Page 17 and 18: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final for
Page 19 and 20: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Hea
Page 21 and 22: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final com
Page 23 and 24: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Let
Page 25 and 26: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final (tw
Page 27 and 28: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final The
Page 29 and 30: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final III
Page 31 and 32: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final sta
Page 33 and 34: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final und
Page 35 and 36: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final - T
Page 37 and 38: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final IV
Page 39 and 40: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Ove
Page 41 and 42: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final lat
Page 43 and 44: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Not
Page 45 and 46: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final was
Page 47 and 48: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final acc
Page 49 and 50: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final sch
Page 51 and 52: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final V T
Page 53 and 54: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final que
Page 55 and 56: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final 199
Page 57 and 58: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final imp
Page 59 and 60: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Box
Page 61 and 62: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final adm
Page 63 and 64: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Tra
Page 65 and 66: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final hel
Page 67: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final (Ki
Page 71 and 72: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final fun
Page 73 and 74: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Cre
Page 75 and 76: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final BIB
Page 77 and 78: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final De,
Page 79 and 80: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Gov
Page 81 and 82: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Kum
Page 83 and 84: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final ___
Page 85 and 86: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final Syn
Page 87 and 88: Version 20 Oct 08, edited final SC:
show all

primary school teachers the twists and turns of everyday practice

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?