Suppose you buy a dog for the security of your home. However, when
you wake up the next morning, you find your house to be broken into and the dog
sleeping. The dog has not done what it was supposed to do, i.e., to guard your
house. So, what would you do next? You may consider getting a better trained
guard-dog or establishing a security system. You would do something that makes
your home secure, which is the main purpose. But, if you were Indian
educational policymaker, you would buy a cat. Two "compelling" arguments: 1) this would be
much cheaper, and 2) a cat’s performance will not be worse than your dog’s
performance which was a failure.
Believe it or not, but this is what is going on with the “para”
teacher (or contract teacher) policy in India. Let me explain:
Though India has done well in building primary education
schools and observed a rapid rise in enrolment-rates, its educational expansion
has generated a great demand for more teachers and has put pressure on most of
the state governments for securing funds given that teacher salaries occupy a
big portion of education budgets. The Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTR), already high
in most states, rose further in the 1990s. The average national PTR for
primary and upper primary classes rose from 35.6 in 1950 to 50.2 in year 2000 (Kingdon and Sipahimalani-Rao 2010). In order to deal with teacher shortage in a frugal manner (and
to deal with high deficits), state governments across India started recruiting
“para” teachers. There is no standard definition of para-teachers, as different
states have different recruitment criteria for these teachers. However, it can
be loosely defined as teachers appointed on contract and/or on terms and
conditions which are different from the regular teachers in primary and upper
primary schools (Kingdon and
Sipahimalani-Rao 2010). In general, para-teachers are paid much less than
regular teachers, and are appointed on temporary basis. However, the proponents of the para-teacher policy focus on the
fact that after this policy the average PTR has reduced significantly from 50.2
in 2000 to 30.15 in 2011 (Mehta 2012) fairly cheaply. However, hiring cheaper
teachers to reduce PTR is exactly opposite of what educationally high
performing countries do. In relative terms, Luxembourg has invested more in
smaller class-size through hiring cheaper teachers; whereas South Korea has
focused on paying well and hiring highly qualified teachers even at the cost of
larger class-size (Schleicher, 2012). It is worth noting that South Korea has
been consistently one of the top performing countries in international
comparative assessments, while Luxemburg remains an average achiever (based on OECD
reports). Therefore, given a choice between hiring high quality teacher and
having a smaller class-size, it is preferable to opt for the first option.
Nonetheless, some World Bank funded studies suggest that
students taught by para-teachers have non-significant achievement difference
from those taught by regular teachers. For example, a study conducted by Sankar
(2008) used data from 360 schools, 920 teachers and 4,800 students of grade
four across three Indian states (i.e., Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar
Pradesh). Controlling for pupils’ home background and school factors, this
study found that children taught by para-teachers have slightly lower learning
levels than those taught by regular teachers. But, when home background factors
were controlled for, the researchers did not find significant difference
between the learning achievement levels of students taught by para and regular
teachers. Policymakers use such results to argue that the para-teacher policy
produces more or less similar learning outcomes in cost-effective manner.
However, there is hardly any consideration of deprofessionalization of the
teaching profession, deteriorating socio-economic status of teachers, and
stagnation in student learning outcomes. Moreover, not a single study explores
longitudinal trends to decipher the long-term effects of deprofessionalization
of teachers on student learning, and how cost-effective (or costly) that can be
for the society as a whole.
It is important to note that para-teachers in India have
more or less same duties and responsibilities as regular teachers. Different
salary for the same job has been an issue of contention between the teacher
unions and policymakers. In addition, most state governments have stopped
hiring regular teachers, because the high unemployment-rate in educated youth
provides fairly large pool of para-teacher recruits (Kingdon and
Sipahimalani-Rao 2010). Apparently, there is a clear case of exploitation of
para teachers and of teaching profession, in-general. Recent events of strikes in the state of Jharkhand can be considered as a culmination of
frustration in para-teachers. The policy of
para-teachers is best criticized in the following statements by Pandey (2006):
“The
government itself on pragmatic economic and bureaucratic grounds is justifying
the para-teacher scheme. Large scale recruitment of para-teachers within the
formal school system and an attitude of resignation towards pre-service
programmes have become an integral part of state provisioning for elementary
education, which can create serious problems of quality and equity in
education, besides creating differential kinds of inequalities among teachers
themselves. There is also a general sense of dissatisfaction among various
stakeholders that second class options are being passed on to the poorer
sections of the society, thereby widening the gap between the rich and well
educated and the poor and poorly educated children. By accepting the scheme of
para-teachers the government is encouraging the states to evade their
responsibilities of building a strong cadre of qualified teachers. The trend
has diluted the identity of the teacher as a professional. The para-teacher
scheme may serve the purpose of UEE [universal elementary education] in far
flung, remote rural and hilly areas as a viable option, but adopting this
scheme to replace the regular teachers is detrimental for the quality of
education and effectiveness of schools and needs to be avoided”
(p.333).
With
the introduction of para-teacher policy across India, the policymakers seem to
be focused on increasing enrolment-rates, reducing PTR, while controlling for
teacher salary budgets. But, improvement of the quality of basic education
seems to be out of their focus. Across 18 Indian states, Education Initiatives (2010)
conducted a large scale study (N=160000), in which students of class
four, six and eight were sampled from 2399 government schools and were tested
in language and mathematics through common-test papers in 13 language versions.
In their executive summary, researchers reported –“learning levels are
extremely low”. Many other large studies on nationally representative sample
have suggested similar conclusions (for e.g., ASER 2005-11). NCERT (2008) collected data from 88,271 students, 10,796 teachers, 4787
schools from 105 districts spread over 27 states and 3 union territories to
study learning achievement of students at the end of class five. Results
suggested that student achievement was especially poor in mathematics, with 8
states having averaged scores less than 40% (i.e., pass-rate). How will
para-teachers perform worse than regular teachers, given that the students’
achievement is already at bottom-levels? Unfortunately, instead of
concentrating on achieving the prime objective of quality mass-education,
Indian policymakers have focused on finding cheaper ways by replacing regular
teachers with para-teachers as both have been ineffective. This is especially troubling given that the Indian
Education Commission and the National Policy on Education states that teacher
is the single most important factor influencing the quality of education (as
suggested in Pandey 2006). India urgently needs a focus-shift on better quality
of education. Do whatever it takes, but let’s secure the home.
Reference (not available online): Sankar, Deepa (2008): “Does teacher’s instructional time matter in school
effectiveness in improving children’s learning outcomes? A study in three
Indian States Using Hierarchical Linear Modelling”, World Bank, New Delhi.
