‘Jhalawar duty’, wherein teachers have been ordered to keep a check on open defecation, brings out the subtle difference between academic leadership and bureaucratic authority. Policy-makers must accept that institutional management is an art and not a craft
Media reports from Jhalawar in Rajasthan tell us about an order passed by the bureaucracy which assigned the teachers a never-before-assigned task: Teachers are under orders to be on duty at 5.00 am in open fields which is used for open defecation. They will have to persuade everyone who loiters on their territory with a lota full of water for you-know-what. If the persuasion fails, which may happen with those in a hurry, the teacher will enter into an alternate strategy — take a photograph. The more enthusiastic ones may opt for a video.
We stand informed that there is no gender discrimination; both male and female teachers have been assigned to perform this national duty and be a part of nation-building. The basic understanding among bureaucrats about teachers is: Use them elsewhere, so they don’t go to schools in time anyway! Does one expect that a teacher, after completing his Jhalawar duty, will prepare his/her lessons and lesson plans that he/she is supposed to use in her/his interaction with the children in the schoolIJ To what extent shall he/she remember that his/her task is to ‘enhance the quality of education’IJ
In India, the quality of education invariably features prominently in practically every discussion and deliberation on value education, manpower planning and how to take advantage of the much-hyped demographic dividend. The manner in which public-funded schools have gone down in performance and credibility is the prime factor that no more needs reforms but a total transformation. The private initiate, which commanded considerable aura in the past, now stands infested with ‘investors’ whose prime consideration is dividend alone, whatever be the official pronouncements.
Unfortunately, wider grounds are being made available to private sector as, after practically having suffered public snub, several State Governments are closing down Government schools as ‘not viable’ or in the name of merger for consolidation. In Kerala, 5,573 schools out of 12,615 are classified as un-economic as enrollments have declined from 52.49 lakh in 1999-2000 to 37.70 lakh in 2015-2016. Obviously, children have shifted to better private schools, as the public perception goes.
Gujarat has received considerable appreciation for its Gunotsav initiative but even there students of classes six to eight could not write simple words and solve mathematical sums. Even if this percentage is low, it is a cause of concern. The assessment of their level of understanding, creativity and curiosity come only afterwards. Such a situation, obviously, demands greater performance levels from teachers. That can come only when teacher education at pre-service stage is indeed rigorous and further, a serious scrutiny of interest and inclination of the aspirant teachers is conducted as pre-requisite to their entry in a college of education.
That majority of such colleges are now in private sector, run by investors whose prime interest is not that of imparting knowledge and skills in adequate and appropriate measure to the student-teachers, particularly in child psychology and emerging pedagogy. In most of the States, decisions on teacher preparations come from bureaucracy and even institutions like Social Communication/Emotional Regulation/Transactional Support and textbook corporations are headed by administrative officers.
The growth of academic leadership in such cases stands stunted, and that has serious implications for quality. Many old timers will recall the scenario that lasted in the mid-1970s, practically in every State, when State-level institutions like the Directorate of Education, the School Education Board, Textbook Bureau, State Institute of Education, and the like were headed by seasoned academics.
They were known for their professional commitment and integrity, apart from being fully conscious of the ‘context’ of the children and teachers under their charge. Someone who may know the diversities of, say, Madhya Pradesh, may not fit in the State of Kerala. To maintain equivalence of learning levels, the National Council Of Educational Research And Training (NCERT) was established and had earned niche for its contributions within the first decade of its existence. As the numbers of schools, enrollments and teachers increased, the clamor for more positions emerged as a natural corollary to the situation and these were generously created at higher levels.
As the process was, and is, under the control of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers, it was also ensured that most of these positions be occupied by their own brethren! Bureaucratisation was accomplished in full and the consequences are before everyone. Why should an IAS officer be heading a Textbook Corporation or be the chairperson of the Board of School EducationIJ
One of the recent decisions taken by the Ministry of Human Resource Development gives considerable hope and expectations that better equipped teachers shall be prepared and that it will impact the quality in Government schools. It is indeed a bold and visionary decision to enhance the duration of the BEd course from one year to two years and recommending a four-year integrated courses after +2 levels.
It must be recalled that four-year integrated courses were initiated in four regional institutes of education of the NCERT in mid-1960s and its products established their superiority within few years of coming out of the first batch. Similarly, NCERT, at the recommendation of the National Council For Teacher Education (NCTE) initiated two-year BEd courses in 1999 in its institutes and Gujarat Vidyapith came in to join voluntarily.
Once again, the quality of products was found far superior than regular one-year products. However, the powers-that-be did not take notice of this successful innovation and ignored it for over 10 years. Both of these models of teacher preparation are outcomes of academic leadership which have now been formally accepted for implementation. Managing teachers, academic institutions and systems in education just cannot be equated with managing law and order in a district. This is what in fact, has been done during the last four decades.
The subtle and sensitive difference between academic leadership and bureaucratic authority has just been ignored. As a consequence, one often comes across media images depicting policemen beating ruthlessly para teachers — both men and women, without any gender discrimination — demanding regularisation of their service. Their handling technique is no different from the one applied in controlling violent mobs burning buses and shops.
Academic leadership need not be faceless as is expected from bureaucracy. Academics are not known by sirens and red beacons but by the example they set up before others. They command respect because they do not expect it as a matter of their being in a certain exalted position. They influence by example and their impact on others can last a lifetime. They innovate continuously and are not just managing the system depending on rules, regulations and authority.
A true academic leader strives to ascertain ‘what is wrong’ and not ‘who is wrong’. He enthusiastically participates in professional deliberations as an equal which is rather impossible for a ‘senior’ bureaucrat who generally prefers to keep aloof. Bureaucracy invariably evokes apprehension and even fear of authority as against affection and empathy that comes from a seasoned academician. One who visualises his task only as ‘managing the system’ will avoid challenges, look towards precedence to find solutions.
Educational institutions need a leadership that accepts challenges, is willing to take risks and helps others in growing up. May be, some day, India will have an Indian education service in place. Policy-makers must accept that institutional management is an art and not a craft as is clearly evident in the Jhalawar-duty.