The draft New Education Policy intends to introduce broad reforms. But for it to be successful, the objectives of teacher preparation must be achieved effectively

It was indeed very encouraging that on the very first day of his taking over the charge of the Indian education system, the new Human Resource Development Minister released the much-awaited draft of the New Education Policy (draft NEP-19). In a welcome move, the draft — both in English and Hindi — was promptly put on the Ministry’s website.  This is an outcome of nation-wide consultations that extended over three-and-a-half years. It must be appreciated across the board that the MHRD has again invited inputs that people, institutions, organisations, experts and others may like to submit after going through the draft. The MHRD shall be considering these before the final policy is announced. The draft report clearly indicates how relevant it has become in the globalised world to ensure active dynamism in education  policy formulation to ensure it remains relevant to absorb challenges that are emerging before nations at an unprecedented pace.

The deliberations — before and after the finalisation of the policy — shall invariably make references to the earlier education policies, particularly those of 1968, 1986 and 1992.  The contents of these earlier reports — at least in academic and professional circles — shall be scrutinised in the context of what was proposed and to what extent it was really achieved in actual implementation. Chapter five of the draft NEP-19 on “teachers” begins with the objective: “Ensure that all students at all levels of school education are taught by passionate, motivated, highly qualified, professionally trained and well-equipped teachers.” Indeed, this is a very well thought out comprehensive policy statement that encompasses every aspect of what a child, community or society could expect from a teacher.

It will be relevant to recall the initial statement of the National Policy on Education of 1986/92 (NPE 86/92): “The status of the teacher reflects the socio-cultural ethos of the society. It is said that no people can rise above the level of its teachers. The Government and community should endeavour to create conditions, which will help motivate and inspire teachers on constructive and creative lines. Teachers should have freedom to innovate, to develop appropriate methods of communication and activities relevant to the needs and capabilities of and the concerns of the community.” The NPE-86/92 made a very strong statement that “the system of teacher education will be overhauled.” It went ahead to recommend the reorganisation of the methods of recruitment of teachers to ensure “merit, objectivity and conformity with spatial and functional requirements.” One was privy to the deliberations of  the 1992 policy revision and formulation and it was agreed upon that there was no need to make any changes in what was already stated in the NPE-86 on teachers and teacher education.

Practically, all that was envisaged in earlier policies finds a place again in the new draft, which has comprehensively captured the teacher-education scenario as it exists today. It has given indications for formulating a well-thought out plan of action in preparation of teachers, who are supposed to be “passionate, motivated and well qualified, and well trained in content, pedagogy and practice.” The NPE-92 had assured overhauling of the system of teacher education and in pursuance of the same, several schemes were launched by the Union Government. One of these was the enactment of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act and also the formulation of a scheme of restructuring and revitalising teacher education.

Let us take up NCTE first. It was the fulfillment of demand of senior and sincere teacher educators for over 20 years to create a regulatory body for teacher education institutions as they were not satisfied with the manner universities were handling recognition and regulation of teacher education institutions. There were serious concerns about the restructuring and renewal of programmes, content and pedagogy, which had become out of date. It was inadequate and unable to respond to fast-changing scenarios in school education with the advent of computers, internet and universalisation of the accessibility of the Information and Communication Technology. The demand for the creation of a statutory NCTE was also accentuated by the mushrooming of correspondence courses that were initiated by some universities to clear the backlog of large number of untrained teachers in schools. State Governments had begun to squeeze the grants to universities, some brilliant minds converted correspondence courses into degree-awarding resource generating adventures. Every policy implementer in education must comprehend that the decline in the quality of teacher education began mainly because of gross misuse of the distance education mode by university dons, vice chancellors and the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC was granting “yearly” permission to continue the BeD courses through correspondence, without in any way assessing the quality of courses and products. The NCTE became functional around 1994-95 and in spite of serious hurdles, could discipline the truant universities. Things changed within five-six years, the NCTE decided to sail along with the tide, the number of private BeD colleges mushroomed and today it is touching 20,000. It will be a tough task to create a regulatory mechanism that will enjoy credibility among the aspiring teachers. Comprehension of ‘Why the NCTE; or other regulatory bodies could not attain and maintain credibility’ will determine the fate of the success or otherwise of the proposed mechanism that separates funding, standard setting, regulation and accreditation.

Education policy-makers were knowledgeable enough to include in the NPE-86 that: “Teachers form the very heart of the education process — all teachers will have academic and professional support within a motivating environment and culture.” Towards this, the Government of India offered extensive financial and professional support to State Governments to re-energise their teacher education institutions. The scheme of establishing a District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) had the potential to transform the very face of school education in India. It had all the potential to create a vibrant professional community of teachers. However, most State Governments did not make regular appointments to academic positions even against posts for which the Union Government provided full financial support. They preferred to bring in people on deputation.

Similar was the fate of colleges of Teacher Education and Institutes of Advanced Studies in education. These and similar schemes were revisited — and redesigned — a couple of times but the originally expected vibrancy always evaded actual implementation. When private entrepreneurs witness Government institutions being ignored and neglected — no regular recruitments and no promotions— they follow the suit, appoint staff only on paper and manage inspections following the well-established — though unstated — practices. The result in over 92 per cent of the private institutions “do not even attempt  to provide a good education; instead many are functioning as commercial shops.” And hundreds of thousands of young people with BeD degrees from such institutions are either already in the system or are ready to enter it. When the Teachers Eligibility Tests were conducted during the initial years, those who could clear it ranged from one to seven per cent.

But there is a ray of hope. The objectives of teacher preparation could indeed be achieved effectively if everyone learns sincerely and seriously from the success of the past and more than that from the failures encountered so far. One wonders how long teachers in sarkari schools shall continue to be assigned non-teaching functions by district administrations in spite of repeated recommendations not to do so and even court judgments being in support of it. Is it not cruel to children in a two-teacher school if both teachers are sent out for months together for census, cattle-head counting, vaccination or elections being held rather regularly? States have shunned their responsibility for decades together by not appointing regular teachers. One simply hopes that official hypocrisy will vanish in future and recommendations made (once again) regarding teacher recruitment will sincerely be implemented within a time-frame. The Indian teacher education system still has — though in a small proportion — dedicated institutions and academics who are convinced that they are lucky enough to get an opportunity to prepare teachers for tomorrow. Thus, they are making the future of India. Let them be identified, given the responsibility, inspire and encourage others to become partners in building new India. India can learn a lot from how Japan —a highly demoralised nation after World War II — could achieve an unprecedented transformation through its teachers: Known for producing worst products in 50s, the best of the products now come from Japan. Yes, teachers did it. It was the teacher community that convinced young impressionable children that anything they do must be for the welfare of their country. That they owe it to Japan to work hard, never waste time and equip them continuously to perform better. India has the experience. It can achieve a real change after the new education policy is formally announced.

(The writer is the Indian Representative on the Executive Board of UNESCO)