By Ankit Vyas
Government teachers in India are civil servants. Their positions are permanent (Kremer et al., 2005). They are supported by strong teacher unions and cases of being fired are extremely rare (Kingdon & Muzammil, 2008 ; Kremer et al., 2005). They go through a pre-service training programme which is irrelevant to the realities of the classroom. In-service trainings are infrequent and lecture-based (Kothari, 1968; NCTE, 2009).
There is no formal system to evaluate teachers. They are judged on their promptness in giving data to frontline administrators and attending trainings diligently. Promotion and increase in pay is on the basis of seniority and political patronage (Ramachandran, Pal, Jain, Shekar & Sharma, 2005). According to the theory of social distance, it is difficult for parents to hold teachers accountable when they are not from the community and belong to a different socio-economic background (Dreze & Sen, 2002). Unfortunately, policy continues to be divorced from theory.
There are two aspects at play here. One, there is a top-down structure of accountability, which is weak and non-iterative. Second, it measures inputs rather than outcomes. Pritchett?s conceptualization around incoherence in accountability is useful in explaining this situation. While the goal of the system is to improve student learning, there is no information collected on learning from teachers nor is any evaluation done on the basis of it.
Implications for teacher accountability
A systemic accountability framework is best served to improve teacher accountability as it can build accountability through the recruitment process, on-going evaluation and the creation of bottom-up accountability structures.
The first step would be evaluating teachers based on learning outcomes, which in turn would determine career progression. To do this, it is required to redefine accountability relationships in terms of learning outcomes at all levels in the education system, specifically at the level of the frontline administrators and teachers.
A caveat to be considered here is the risk of encouraging the phenomenon of ?teaching to the test? (Volante, 2004). Additionally, teachers need to be held liable for non-performance in the classroom and the feature of enforceability needs to be built into the system to increase accountability.
The second step would be building accountability through the recruitment process. Pritchett (2015) argues that teachers are selected on the basis of ?thin? criteria- qualifications and eligibility tests, which are weak indicators of performance. In his words, teaching is a ?thick? activity which is transaction intensive. It involves making contextualized decisions on a day-to-day basis. The skills required for such an activity are impossible to identify through a test or qualifications.
Using this as a base, Muralidaran (2015) argues for the hiring of local teachers on an apprenticeship basis. This can be for a period of three- to five years, giving ample time to observe performance and gauge effectiveness of candidate. Post this period, only those who demonstrate effective teaching outcomes could be selected. The hiring of local teachers would also mean reducing the social distance between teachers and parents, thereby promoting bottom-up accountability.
What role can parents play?
Increasingly, the most disadvantaged (girls, low-caste and other underprivileged) children are attending government schools (Mehta, 2005).To empower parents to hold teachers accountable, the Right to Education Act mandates the setting up of a School Management Committee (SMC) for each school. The SMC comprises of parents, teachers and local leaders. This was an attempt to use a bottom-up accountability framework to make teachers accountable. It was thought that SMCs could play a role in reducing teacher absenteeism, increasing time on task and eventually improving learning (MHRD, 2011).
In reality, SMCs have been ineffective in achieving the goal of increased teacher accountability. The theorisation of the bottom-up accountability framework stresses the importance of changing power structures. Unfortunately, the policy on SMCs ignores it. Parents are unaware of their power and responsibilities as SMC members (Central Square Foundation, 2014). Further, existing power structures and lack of authority of SMCs makes it impossible to hold teachers accountable, who are supported by strong teacher unions and often local politicians as well (Banerji, Duflo, Glennerster & Khemani., 2008).
Implications for parent-led accountability
Parents? influence networks need to be strengthened. Where they are strong, the SMCs are a useful tool in improving accountability. Literature shows different ways of strengthening these networks. In some areas, involvement of civil society organisations has increased SMCs effectiveness the (The Education Alliance, 2016). In other regions, it has been awareness of parents (Oxfam, 2014). In some, the engagement of local leaders in SMCs to hold teachers accountable has led to positive results (Central Square Foundation, 2013).
The failure of many government driven bottom-up accountability initiatives is indicative of the need to dismantle existing power structures. The government needs to make a conscious effort to augment these bottom-up accountability structures by changing power structures and strengthening the influence networks of parents. In this context, promoting accountability driven by the poor and the oppressed should be part of a broader effort to drive social change and remove inequality.
Live News Daily is a trusted name in the digital news space, delivering accurate, timely, and in-depth reporting on a wide range of topics.