Para-Teacher Policy: Neither Child nor Learning, but Money Centred

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.

India, Its Neighbours and Issues of Religious Minority

In the Indian subcontinent, whenever issues are raised that deal with nationality and religion, the public response is usually from the emotional, rather than rational standpoint. Despite being the biggest of all, India is in a tricky situation while confronting its neighbours on issues of religious minority. Its population distribution by religion is: 80% Hindu, 14% Muslim, 2.5% Christian, 2% Sikh, 1% Buddhist, 0.5% Jains and others (as per 2001-Census). However, its neighbours (except Nepal) have Hindus in minority; for example – Pakistan >96% Muslims, Bangladesh 90% Muslim, Sri Lanka 70% Buddhist. Therefore, if Indian officials raise issues pertaining to minorities in neighbouring country, the neighbours see that purely from a religious prism as if mumbling in secrete –“Of course, they’ll raise issues of Hindus, because they themselves are Hindus”.

In addition, communal riots within India hurt its credibility tremendously. Imagine an Indian diplomat in Pakistan working on asylum applications of a Hindu-family on the grounds of religious freedom during the times of anti-Muslim riots in Maharashtra (or Gujarat).  

However, constitutionally India is a secular country and the state is required to protect all citizens by law. If that is compromised, the law of court (with all its limitations) supports the victims and not the perpetrators. In the broader picture, minorities in India have significantly flourished politically, socially & economically and in proportion of total population since 1950. The Muslims (biggest minority group) were about 9% in 50s; and today (year 2011) form about 14.5% of total population. Indian education system does not vilify any religion at any level; in fact there has been a conscious and consistent effort for promoting religious diversity and acceptance since independence era. So far in my life, I have not seen a single Indian movie that promotes superiority of Hindus or demonizes non-Hindus (or punishes the “infidels”). Though things are far from what is expected in an ideal society and the pace of religious integration of communities is frustratingly slow, the foundations are strong and cohesive in nature.

On the other hand, things have gone bad to worse in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.  

Minorities in Pakistan:

In early 50’s, the Hindu population in Pakistan (including today’s Bangladesh) was nearly 22% of total population which decreased to 1.6% as of 1998. There are great reasons to believe this proportion may have significantly dropped in this past decade due to high rate of forced-conversion of Hindus and migration out of Pakistan. In addition, the Islamization of the country and the rise of extremism has made the minorities easy (and often “just”) targets. Not only Hindus, but Christians, Qadianis (Ahmadies) and all other minorities have been systematically marginalized. The rise of extremism is even targeting the Shia-population (sect of Muslims) as evident by growing violent attacks in recent times.         

Clip from Tehelka's youtube channel:

  

Minorities in Bangladesh:

Bangladesh is not as hopeless as Pakistan in securing its minorities. However, the decreasing relative population of minorities paint an unpleasant picture. As of 2001, the percentage of Hindus was just about 9.6 as compared to 22% in 1951. Minorities have been systematically marginalized. Nonetheless, relatively stable democratic government and recent economic rise of Bangladesh are positive signs. For more details on minorities in Bangladesh go here:  http://www.hrcbm.org/.

Minorities in Sri Lanka:

For non-Tamilian Indians Sri Lanka’s case has been a puzzle. Given Buddhism’s birth and rise in India from Hinduism, average Indians do not see any difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. It is assumed that Sri Lanka being a Buddhist must be a close ally. However, the conflict between Tamilians and Sinhalese have been deeply woven in Sri Lankan social fabric. The ethnic conflict (Sinhala Vs. Tamil) is often perceived as religious conflict (Buddhist vs. Hindu) in Sri Lanka and most Indians fail to understand that. As noted by Heyneman (2002), Sri Lankan text books have glorified the Buddhist (or ethnically Sinhalese) kings and vilified Tamilian (or Hindu) “invaders” for many decades. The Tamilians have always been the villains in the dominant historical narrative. Sri Lanka has feed to its people anti-Tamil sentiments. As a result, Tamilian minority has not been able to integrate with the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka remains socially divided. Moreover, the scenario has been further deteriorated by absolutely idiotic Indian foreign policy of successive Congress governments in 80’s. First they covertly trained Sri Lankan Tamilian militants to fight for their political rights in Sri Lanka. When things uncovered and the issue became international, Rajiv Gandhi sent Indian soldiers to fight with the Sri Lankan forces against the Tamilian militants. What a classic case of sheer lunacy!!! Today the Tamilian armed-resistance has ended with innumerable human rights violation by Sri Lankan armed forces. The biggest losers have been Sri Lankan Tamilians.

So, what should India do?

One camp states very clearly – It is none of our business. We only focus inside of our borders. We have countless problems, why bother solving internal conflicts of our neighbours? The problem with this view is that it is too narrow. As India rises, it has to take regional (and gradually global) responsibilities. People who favour this stand often cite China and its "non-interference" policy. I think that is not a good analogy, given that the Han-Chinese have never been ethnically cleansed in other parts of the world. If Han-Chinese are in trouble internationally, I highly doubt if China will restraint. 

Another camp says – India is a Hindu dominant country. There is no other country in the world which will defend Hindu minorities in these countries. We should never let people suffer just because they are Hindus; and we must use our strength to counter that.  However, strong adherence to this view leads one to foreign policy disaster as evident by the episode of Tamil-tigers in the India-Sri Lanka relations. Going overboard and exploring military actions is never a solution for social-issue, especially for a minority community in another country.   

My take:

1)      Strictly protect citizens (especially, the minorities) in India against all sorts of hate-crimes.

2)      Provide incentives to neighbours for integrating their minorities into mainstream (e.g., trade agreements with condition of history textbook revisions, decrease in crimes against minorities etc.)

3)      The Hindu-religious organizations need to move out. Hindus in India do not need you as much as Hindus in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka need. That’s something to learn from the Christians. Even the political fractions like VHP, Bajarangdal or RSS need to work in these countries to build schools, hospitals and to politically empower communities there.

4)      Indian politicians need to be more assertive while visiting neighbouring countries. There is no political boldness in talking about Hinduism on the banks of Ganga. Visit ancient temples in Pakistan, and then talk about Vedic civilization of the Indus and religious harmony from there.

5)      Got to do all the above things simultaneously and persistently.

Note: Secularism should never be confused with in-action for religious bigotry. Secular state should and must strongly take a stand against such hate-propaganda inside as well as outside of its borders. 

Welcome your ideas on this...

Education and Global Citizenship

Educational policy, curriculum development, and instructional practices – all of these revolve around a central question – “what kind of a citizen does the education system aims at developing?” If the policymakers can answer this convincingly, then half of the battle is won. The response to this question provides the direction in which a state/country wants to proceed. Once the direction is clear, all that remains is the alignment of educational policies, curriculum, and instructional practices in the desired direction.

Traditionally, the educational policymakers have focused on citizenship values within national framework (as suggested in various national education commission, NCERT and MHRD reports). However, this definition needs a revision because the present India is deeply connected with the international community.

•               Economic Argument: In 1991, India began major economic reforms and since then its economy has been gradually opening up. In his book ‘Breakout Nations’ , Ruchir Sharma reports that for more than past three decades India’s GDP growth-rate is highly correlated (>.9) with the average GDP growth-rate across emerging markets. Multinational corporations have entered many sectors and the Indian companies, too, are going global. In short, the Indian economy is greatly affected by the global economy. The economic projections can no longer be based on domestic factors alone; and our youth have to have some understanding of how the world economy works.

•               Cultural Argument: Due to the revolutionary expansion of telecommunication and internet, the youth is exposed to cultures of various parts of the world like never before. From the world cinema, literature and television to sports and fashion – today’s youth is consuming and sharing everything that is easily accessible to them. Societal norms (e.g., linguistic, clothing & fashion, behavioural and thinking pattern) are being redefined at a fast pace. For an example, let’s look at the cultural value of obedience. In traditional Indian society, an ideal student would be the one who is obedient and follows everything that the teacher says. However, today the students have a lot many sources of accessing learning-content. Therefore, in the case of discrepancy between teacher’s instruction and students’ prior knowledge, the students may no longer accept everything that the teacher says. They might question – question teacher’s source of information and even his/her understanding. Though the educators and policy-makers like to say that they encourage inquiry-driven approach to learning, the conflict between questioning and obedience is often explicit in the Indian classrooms. We have to look at India’s cultural-values, given their dynamism, in the global perspective.
•               Environmental Argument: A lot has been said about global climate change and environmental hazards by so many experts. It is a high time we inculcate values in our children for taking the responsibility of environment in and beyond India.

•               Security Argument: Since independence, India has been dealing with external security threats. After 9/11 attacks in New York, the global security concerns have been reported widely. The terrorists and anti-India organizations often have strong interlinks that transcend various parts of the world. Note that late-adolescence is the developmental stage when the youngsters are deeply concerned about national security and tackling threats and need all the answers. Our education system needs to deal with these issues to help youth understand that things are not as simple as bombing or invading a country. This may also help youth deal with extremism, hate-propaganda and war-mongering.   

•               Resource Constraint Argument: With increasing world population and decreasing available resources, future citizens may find it more challenging to coexist peacefully. We already feel the tension with neighbours for water. In future, need for energy, raw material for industries and water-scarcity may trigger bigger conflicts. The education system has to equip younger minds with international understanding and skills for conflict resolution.

Considering these arguments, let’s rethink – what kind of future citizens do we need? Based on my understanding of today’s knowledge-based economy and modern educational research on required knowledge and skills for the 21st century, I would suggest the following characteristics that we may like to see in a citizen:

1.                  Understands how the world functions economically, politically, technologically and environmentally (as suggested by Oxfam, UK).

2.                  Is globally competent in respective field of study

3.                  Is able to identify and define problems, gather evidences, and produce knowledge.

a.                   Is capable of implementing knowledge based solutions to the real world for sustainable development

4.                  Is able to develop and maintain successful relationship based on mutual respect and acceptance with people of different religions, nationality, racial and linguistic backgrounds, and cultures.

5.                  Identifies personal interest with the collective interest of human society.

6.                  Critically analyses and understands the difference between hate-propaganda, war mongering and systematic injustice.

7.                  Thinks globally, analyses nationally and acts locally (based on Lynn Davis’ work on global citizenship).

Implications for Curriculum

            When we define global citizenship as described above the aim of the curriculum changes in parts, if not completely. Though science and mathematics remain important, subjects like languages, commerce and social sciences gain high value as well. Curricula for math and science become inquiry-based, where students have to identify and define problems, form hypothesis, design experiments, collect and analyse data, infer results, and design improvement plans. The focus is more on the depth of learning, rather than its broadness. Just as reading and writing, computer programming languages and coding also become part of students’ required skill-set right from primary schools.

            As described in the previous article, the history and geography education needs to a different approach (based on John Dewey’s recommendations). The objective for ‘history’ should not be to glorify certain kings and describing wars, but to understand how wars are devastating for societies and why (and how) that should be avoided. History curriculum should put higher emphasis on the lives and struggles of ordinary people of respective times, the challenges that they faced and the solutions they obtained. Similarly, the subject of geography needs to aim at conveying how geographical factors affect human lives, culture, economic investments, developmental plans of governments and respective environmental issues; and how the interlink of all factors in other regions are different from (and similar to) learner’s geographic region.

            Nurturing critical minds is no small objective. The aim of teaching languages must be beyond achieving literacy. Audio-visual contents, especially movies and plays deserve a place in language curriculum. What and how much students are supposed to read and write must have strong justifications. In addition to the local literature, there has to be some incorporation of great works from different parts of the world. Also, a course on creative writing needs to be integrated in the formal curriculum. Poetry writing, play writing, script writing, movie making, literary critiquing are all ignored aspects of linguistic competency in the present curriculum across various educational boards in India – why?    

            Finally, in order to enhance students’ understanding of how the world functions, the high school curriculum needs to be flexible. Students should be allowed to take interdisciplinary courses. For example, a science student maybe interested in entrepreneurship, so why shouldn’t s/he be allowed to take a business course? Or a psychology student maybe interested in taking higher math course to learn matrix algebra which is essential for factor analysis of psychological constructs. In today’s competitive globalized world, we must give our students maximum learning opportunities. Rigid educational structure is not helping us achieve that.

Implication for Instructional Practices

As suggested by Davis (2008), schools can encourage students to think globally, analyse nationally and act locally on various vital issues. A typical classroom will use elements of critical pedagogy where students are active participants in the classroom discussions and the teacher’s role is that of a facilitator. Teacher guides students’ inquiry rather than preaching personal opinions. 

For example, a lesson on immigration issue can proceed in the following direction in a school in the city of Ahmedabad, Gujarat:

•         Global thinking: Are there accounts of Indians being discriminated abroad? (Explore cases of Indian students ill-treated in Australia/UK; labourers exploited in the Middle East and so on). Why is that happening? What do the native people think of Indian community?

•         National analysis: How does India treat immigrants? Explore the conflict between Bangladeshi immigrants and Bengali/Assamese people. What is the problem in Mumbai with internal migration? What is the conflict between Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) and North Indian community in Mumbai? What are the factors forcing people to migrate? What is the central government doing to ensure a balanced growth of India?

•         Local action: How is Ahmedabad/Gujarat dealing with international/national immigrants? How will it tackle immigration in future (as rapid development may attract skilled/unskilled people from everywhere)? Students plan activities to facilitate immigrants – e.g., meeting immigrant communities, inviting guests, visiting places where they encounter foreigners, making friends via internet and exposure to other cultures-food-music-dances- movies.

Note that the class discussions could be political in-nature. Therefore, it is imperative that the adolescents and youth are exposed to all sides of viewpoints while discussing a particular issue. The multiple perspectives from multiple sources may help them develop deeper understanding of the complex reality. For example, while discussing the Kashmir issue, one should look into the Indian government’s stand, the Pakistan government’s stand, the United Nations resolution as well as the viewpoints of various Kashmiri communities (people in valley, Jammu, Ladakh, and Gilgit-Baltistan).

            In order to have effective instructional practices, a democratic teacher-student relationship is highly warranted.  According to Paulo Freire (quoted in Bartlett, 2008), “…dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming – between those who deny other men the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied to them”. Teacher has to create an environment for a dialogue, and establish a horizontal relationship with the students. Furthermore, teachers themselves need to demonstrate global citizenship values. It has been well established in the educational literature that teachers can teach a lot via modelling desired behaviour and skills (as per Vygotsky’s developmental theory).

            The incorporation of the global citizenship, as defined in this article, in the formal education has a potential for nurturing independent critical minds that are capable of working collaboratively for the sustainable development, and producing (and utilizing) knowledge which can help resolve difficult issues. The goal is too idealistic; but we need to begin from somewhere, don’t we?

References

Bartlett, L. (2008). Paulo Freire and Peace Education. In Bajaj M. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of peace education (39-45). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Davis, L. (2008). Global citizenship education. In Bajaj M. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of peace education (109-114). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.