?By?Ankit Vyas
The teachers employed by Government schools in India are civil servants, with permanent positions (Kremer et al., 2005). They are supported by strong teacher unions, due to which the cases of their being laid off are extremely rare (Kingdon & Muzammil, 2008 ; Kremer et al., 2005). Realistically speaking, they only go through a pre-service training programme that is irrelevant to the realities of a typical classroom atmosphere. In-service trainings are infrequent and largely lecture-based (Kothari, 1968; NCTE, 2009).?Additionally, there exists no formal system to evaluate teachers. They are judged based on their promptness in giving data to frontline administrators and attending training sessions regularly. Promotion and increase in pay is done 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 same community and belong to a different socio-economic background (Dreze & Sen, 2002). Unfortunately, policy continues to be treated separately from theory. ?There are two aspects at play here. One, that there is a top-down structure of accountability; weak and non-iterative. Second, that it measures inputs rather than outcomes. Pritchett?s conceptualisation 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.
Teacher accountability
A systemic framework is best served to improve teacher accountability as it helps build the same through the recruitment process, on-going evaluation and the creation of bottom-up accountability structures. ?
The first step would to evaluate teachers based on learning outcomes, which would in turn help determine career progression. To do this, it is necessary to redefine accountability relationships in terms of learning outcomes at all levels in the education system, specifically at the level of frontline administrators and teachers. A caveat to be considered here is the risk of encouraging the phenomenon of ?teaching to the test? (Volante, 2004). Teachers need to be held liable for non-performance in the classroom and the feature of enforceability needs to be built into the system.
The second step would build 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, that is transaction intensive. It involves making decisions on a day-to-day basis. The skills required for such an activity are impossible to identify through a test.
Using this as a base case, Muralidaran (2015) argues for the hiring of local teachers on an apprenticeship basis. This could be for a period of three to five years, giving ample time to observe performance and gauge the effectiveness of the candidate. Following this period, only those who demonstrate effective teaching outcomes would be selected. The hiring of local teachers would also mean reducing the social distance between teachers and parents, thereby promoting bottom-up accountability.
A parent’s role
Increasingly, the most disadvantaged (girls, low-caste and the underprivileged) children are attending government schools (Mehta, 2005). In order to empower parents to hold teachers accountable, the Right to Education Act that mandates the setting up of a School Management Committee (SMC) for each school, must be enforced. The SMC comprises parents, teachers and local leaders. This was an attempt to use a bottom-up accountability framework to make teachers accountable. SMCs were thought to have been able to 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 any of these goals. The theorisation of the bottom up accountability framework stresses the importance of changing power structures. Unfortunately, the SMC policy ignores it. Parents are unaware of their power and responsibilities as members (Central Square Foundation, 2014). Further, existing power structures and lack of authority of SMCs makes it impossible to hold teachers accountable, since they are supported by strong teacher unions and local politicians (Banerji, Duflo, Glennerster & Khemani., 2008).
The implications of a parent-led accountability structure
The networks involving parents’ influence needs 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 Education Alliance, 2016), while in others, it has been the awareness of the parents themselves (Oxfam, 2014). ?The engagement of local leaders in SMCs to hold teachers accountable has also 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 structures by 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.