By Ankit Vyas
Government teachers in India are civil servants. Their positions are permanent and are supported by strong teacher unions and cases of being fired are extremely rare. They also go through a pre-service training programme which is irrelevant to the realities of the classroom.
However, there is no formal system to evaluate teachers. They are judged on their promptness in giving data to frontline administrators and attending training diligently.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]They are judged on their promptness in giving data to frontline administrators and attending training diligently.[/su_pullquote]
Promotion and increase in pay are on the basis of seniority and political patronage. 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. Unfortunately, policies continue to be divorced from theories.
Implications for teacher accountability
A systemic accountability framework is needed to 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.
It is important for the government to work closely with civil societies to develop a teacher accountability system. | Photo Courtesy: The Indian ExpressA warning to be considered here is the risk of encouraging the phenomenon of teaching to the test. 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. The economist, Lant Pritchett, 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. The skills required for such an activity are impossible to identify through a test or qualifications.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]This can be for a period of three- to five years, giving ample time to observe performance and gauge the effectiveness of a candidate.[/su_pullquote]
Using this as a base, Karthik Muralidharan 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 the effectiveness of a 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 children are attending government schools. 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 parents, teachers and local leaders. It was thought that SMCs could play a bottom-up role in ensuring teacher accountability by reducing teacher absenteeism, increasing time on task and eventually improving learning.
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 SMC’s ignores it. Parents are unaware of their power and responsibilities as SMC members.
Further, existing power structures and lack of authority of SMC’s makes it impossible to hold teachers accountable, who are supported by strong teacher unions. Parents influence networks need to be strengthened. Where they are strong, the SMC’s are a useful tool in improving accountability. In some areas, the involvement of civil society organisations has increased SMCs effectiveness whereas, in other regions, it has been awareness of parents. In some, the engagement of local leaders in SMCs to hold teachers accountable has led to positive results. Therefore, 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.