Teacher Quality and Education Policy in India: Understanding the Relationship Between Teacher Education, Teacher Effectiveness, and Student Outcomes 2020050059, 2020050060, 9780367516413, 9781003054726, 9780367757564

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of illustrations
Preface
Abbreviations
1. Introduction: The Impact of National Policy on Teacher Quality in India
PART I: The Indian Education System and Teacher Quality
2. The Preparation and Development of Teachers in India
3. Linking Teacher Quality to Education Policy
4. Traditional and Non-Traditional Approaches to Teacher Quality
PART II: Examining Indian Education Policies for Teacher Quality
5. Making Teaching Relevant to the Child: Teacher Quality Discourse in NCF 2005
6. The Professionalization of Teaching: Teacher Quality Discourse in NCFTE 2009
7. Restoring Credibility Through Teacher Quality: Teacher Quality Discourse in Draft NEP 2016 and 2019
8. Rooting Equitable Education in Teacher Quality: Teacher Quality Discourse in NEP 2020
PART III: Moving Beyond Policies for Indian Teacher Quality
9. The Effects of Traditional and Non-Traditional Teacher Quality on Student Achievement in India
10. Evidence-Based Policy Recommendations for Improved Teacher Quality in India
Index

Citation preview

Teacher Quality and Education Policy in India

By drawing on quantitative data and qualitative analyses of five major national education documents implemented in India over the last 15 years, this comprehensive volume explores their impact on teacher quality and perceived effectiveness, explaining how this relates to variations in student performance. Responding to a national agenda to increase the quality of the Indian teacher workforce, Teacher Quality and Education Policy in India critically questions the application of human capital theory to Indian education policy. Chapters provide in-depth and strategically structured analyses of five national education documents – including the recently approved National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 – to see how Indian policymakers use teacher quality as a driver and measurement of education and national economic development. Ultimately, the text offers evidence-based policy recommendations to improve teacher quality in India, suggesting that while all five documents have contributed significant frameworks and recommendations for teacher quality reform, they have failed to move beyond a symbolic function. Given its rigorous methodological approach, this book will be a valuable addition to the under-researched question of education policymaking in postcolonial contexts. It will be an indispensable resource not only for scholars working on policymaking in the Indian context, but also for those working at the intersection of education, teacher development, and policymaking in developing countries. Preeti Kumar is an independent researcher and educational consultant based in South Africa. She completed her PhD at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, USA. Alexander W. Wiseman is Professor of Educational Leadership & Policy in the College of Education at Texas Tech University, USA.

Routledge Research in Teacher Education

The Routledge Research in Teacher Education series presents the latest research on Teacher Education and also provides a forum to discuss the latest practices and challenges in the field. Integrating Technology in English Language Arts Teacher Education Donna L. Pasternak Research-Informed Teacher Learning Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice Edited by Lori Beckett Europeanisation in Teacher Education A Comparative Case Study of Teacher Education Policies and Practices Vasileios Symeonidis Study Abroad for Pre- and In-Service Teachers Transformative Learning on a Global Scale Laura Baecher Becoming Somebody in Teacher Education Person, Profession and Organization in a Global Southern Context Kari Kragh Blume Dahl Professional Learning and Identities in Teaching International Narratives of Successful Teachers Edited by A. Cendel Karaman and Silvia Edling Teacher Quality and Education Policy in India Understanding the Relationship Between Teacher Education, Teacher Effectiveness, and Student Outcomes Preeti Kumar and Alexander W. Wiseman For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Routledge-Research-in-Teacher-Education/book-series/RRTE

Teacher Quality and Education Policy in India Understanding the Relationship Between Teacher Education, Teacher Effectiveness, and Student Outcomes Preeti Kumar and Alexander W. Wiseman

First published 2021 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Preeti Kumar and Alexander W. Wiseman The right of Preeti Kumar and Alexander W. Wiseman to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kumar, Preeti, author. | Wiseman, Alexander W., 1968- author. Title: Teacher quality and education policy in India : understanding the relationship between teacher education, teacher effectiveness, and student outcomes / Preeti Kumar and Alexander W. Wiseman. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Routledge research in teacher education | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020050059 (print) | LCCN 2020050060 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367516413 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003054726 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Teachers--Training of--India. | Teacher effectiveness-India. | Education and state--India. Classification: LCC LB1727.I5 K86 2021 (print) | LCC LB1727.I5 (ebook) | DDC 370.71/10954--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050059 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050060 ISBN: 978-0-367-51641-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-75756-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-05472-6 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Taylor & Francis Books

This book is dedicated to Dr. Preeti Kumar’s late parents, Mr. Balkrishna and Mrs. Nalini Awati, with love, affection, and gratitude.

Contents

List of illustrations Preface Abbreviations 1 Introduction: The Impact of National Policy on Teacher Quality in India

ix xi xiv

1

PART I

The Indian Education System and Teacher Quality

23

2 The Preparation and Development of Teachers in India

25

3 Linking Teacher Quality to Education Policy

50

4 Traditional and Non-Traditional Approaches to Teacher Quality

74

PART II

Examining Indian Education Policies for Teacher Quality 5 Making Teaching Relevant to the Child: Teacher Quality Discourse in NCF 2005

95 97

6 The Professionalization of Teaching: Teacher Quality Discourse in NCFTE 2009

122

7 Restoring Credibility Through Teacher Quality: Teacher Quality Discourse in Draft NEP 2016 and 2019

143

8 Rooting Equitable Education in Teacher Quality: Teacher Quality Discourse in NEP 2020

172

viii Contents PART III

Moving Beyond Policies for Indian Teacher Quality

191

9 The Effects of Traditional and Non-Traditional Teacher Quality on Student Achievement in India

193

10 Evidence-Based Policy Recommendations for Improved Teacher Quality in India

218

Index

238

Illustrations

Figures 2.1 Indian Education System (Cheney, Ruzzi, & Muralidharan, 2005). 3.1 Progression from Commission to the First National Education Policy. 3.2 Teacher Quality Characteristics in Each National Education Policy. 3.3 Indian Teacher Quality Policy Cycle. 5.1 Phases in Content Analysis. Adapted from Kuckartz (2014). 6.1 Curricular Areas of Initial Teacher Preparation in NCFTE 2009. Reprinted from NCFTE (2009, p. 27). 9.1 Average Student Math Achievement Scores by Country, PISA 2009. 9.2 Average Student Science Achievement Scores by Country, PISA 2009. 9.3 Average Student Reading Achievement Scores by Country, PISA 2009. 10.1 Percentage of Sentences Relating to Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in the Policy Documents. 10.2 Percentage of Sentences Relating to Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in the Policy Documents. 10.3 Timeline Depicting Shift in Teacher Quality Indicators and National Competitiveness from 2005 to 2020.

27 51 59 62 104 126 195 196 197 219 222 225

Tables 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Traditional Teacher Quality Indicator Keywords Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicator Keywords Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding Additional Teacher Quality Indicators from NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, Draft NEP 2016, and Draft NEP 2019

103 103 105 107

x

List of illustrations

5.5

Data Frequency Matrix for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in NCF 2005 5.6 Data Frequency Matrix for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Including Teacher Accountability in NCF 2005 6.1. Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding 6.2. Data Frequency Matrix for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in NCFTE 2009 6.3 Data Frequency Matrix for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Including Teacher Accountability in NCFTE 2009 6.4 Teacher Education Before NCFTE 2009 Versus Teacher Education Proposed by NCFTE 2009 7.1 Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding 7.2 Data Frequency Table for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in Draft NEP 2016 7.3 Data Frequency Table for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators including Teacher Accountability in Draft NEP 2016 7.4 Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding 7.5 Data Frequency Table for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in Draft NEP 2019 7.6 Data Frequency Table for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators including Teacher Accountability in Draft NEP 2019 8.1 Pages Coded in Final Coding 8.2 Data Frequency Table for Traditional Teacher Quality Variables 8.3 Data Frequency Table for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Variables Including Teacher Accountability 9.1 Descriptive Statistics for Key Teacher Quality Variables (Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, PISA 2009) 9.2 Pearson Correlations Between Student Achievement Scores, Student Level Characteristics, and Key Teacher Quality Predictors (Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, PISA 2009) 9.3 Linear Regression of Student Achievement on Student Background Characteristics and Key Teacher Quality Predictors (Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, PISA 2009) 9.4 HLM Estimates of the Impact of Traditional and NonTraditional Teacher Quality on Student Achievement in India (Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh, PISA 2009)

108 108 127 127 127 132 150 150 151 156 156 157 176 176 177 203

206

207

210

Preface

Since the first BRICS Ministerial Meeting in 2006, five countries have been associated with each other as the world’s major emerging national economies. These five countries include Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (i.e., BRICS), and together they cover over 25% of the world’s land area, 40% of the world’s population, and hold 15% of the global GDP (Radulescu, Panait, & Voica, 2014). By their sheer economic and demographic dominance, they are among the most influential societies, political systems, and economies in the 21st century. Education is one of the key factors that has enabled BRICS countries to attain this status. In fact, BRICS countries are pouring resources into their education systems (Yuan, 2013). A chief educational resource in BRICS countries are teachers. In fact, teachers are the single most important school-related factor in student achievement (Azam & Kingdon, 2014; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goldhaber, 2016). BRICS countries, like India, have long recognized that the quantity of teachers available to teach is just as important as the quality of those teachers. This is why we focus on India, as the second most populous BRICS country, and the national agenda to increase the quality of the Indian teacher workforce. Policymakers in India have firmly adopted the rationale of human capital theory (e.g., Mincer, 1981), and argue that economic investment of teachers’ human capital will inexorably lead to increased teacher quality, which will lead to increase student performance, which will lead to increased employment, productivity, and eventually national status. This linear policy agenda, however, is complemented by the fact that more and more countries are focusing on teacher quality as the way to improve student outcomes and economic productivity overall, in spite of the fact that teacher quality has been consistently shown to neither influence student performance nor economic productivity (Ramirez et al., 2006). In fact, it could be argued that India’s adoption of teacher quality rhetoric in its national education policy is more symbolic than realistic. By framing teacher quality as a national educational focus, India’s educational system aligns itself with other national education systems, which serve some of the most productive and highest scoring countries like Finland and Singapore.

xii Preface Despite the perceived importance of teacher quality to India’s educational and economic growth, there is limited evidence that India’s national education policies impact either teacher quality or overall student achievement. This gap in information is compounded by the fact that India participated in the recent international assessment, the Program on International Student Assessment (PISA), administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and scored far below the international average on student achievement. As a result there have been frequent criticisms of the poor quality of Indian teachers and education in general in India. For example, the Indian media blamed teacher quality for India’s poor performance in PISA 2009 (Lahiri, 2012). Yet, policymakers in India are still looking towards teacher quality to improve education overall. Therefore, this book investigates both the content and impact of major national education documents in India that were either published, ratified, or implemented in the 21st century to understand the influence of these documents on teacher quality and also to identify how teacher quality explains the variance in student performance in India. As we were writing this book, India released the National Education Policy 2020, which updated the National Policy on Education (NPE)1986. Although only time will tell if NEP 2020 is implementable and leads to the improvement of teacher quality in India, the timing of NEP 2020 was perfect because it brought our conceptual framework of the Indian education policy cycle to life. In fact, NEP 2020 reflects a bit of each of the previous national policies and frameworks beginning with the de facto policy belief in the connection between education and the economy, through the scripting of each Indian national teacher quality or policy framework to fulfill either national or international legitimization needs, and finally ending with the largely decoupled implementation of the policy or framework. It is in many ways a tragic story because the loftiest and most visionary descriptions of what education in India could be, and the ways that teachers bring education to life, are merely words after all. And, without accompanying action, those words may be empty. To help policymakers and others in India’s education community make sense of these policies, frameworks, and the evidence we present in this book to bring them to life, we end our final chapter with seven different policy recommendations. Frankly, another whole book could be written about each of those recommendations, especially the first four, which outline the key factors necessary to not only make good policy, but sustainably and successfully implement education policy in India and elsewhere. Our hope is that this book provides not only a handy reference to understand the teacher quality and educational policy platforms of early 21st century India, but that it becomes a tool for understanding the national education policy cycle, and reasons why policies are relatively easy to make and comparatively difficult to implement. We hope that the journey of reading this book is enlightening as well as informative, and as always we thank the teachers of India for their commitment, their expertise, their caring, and their perseverance even when it is difficult to continue moving forward.

Preface

xiii

Finally, as we were writing this book the coronavirus pandemic engulfed the world in a way that was unimaginable to any of us just before it happened. The face of public life, and education in particular changed dramatically in early and mid-2020, and was still going through new evolutions as we completed this book. Because the impact of coronavirus on education and on teachers, in particular, is an evolving process, we have chosen to avoid making estimations of what the impact on teacher quality will be and how the implementation of India’s national education policy will be affected. No doubt, there will be ample evidence and the accompanying empirical research to follow, which will tell us more than we are capable of knowing in the moment. But, as authors of this volume, we want to say one final word of thanks and honor the teachers who have continued to work through the pandemic, in conditions that may not have always been safe, to bring education to the youth of India.

References Azam, M., & Kingdon, G. (2014). Assessing teacher quality in India (Working Paper No. 8622). London, UK: International Growth Center. Retrieved from http:// www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Azam-King don-2014-Working-Paper.pdf. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org. Goldhaber, D. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most: Today's research reinforces Coleman's findings. Education Next, 16(2), 56–63. Lahiri, D. (2012, October 9). The PISA shocker. The Times of India. Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-09/edit-page/34324055_1_ progressive-schools-indiaenvironment. Mincer, J. (1981). Human capital and economic growth (Working Paper No. 803). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http:// www4.fe.uc.pt/mapsd/mincer_w0803.pdf. Radulescu, I. G., Panait, M., & Voica, C. (2014). BRICS countries challenge to the world economy new trends. Procedia Economics and Finance, 8, pp.605–613. Ramirez, F. O., Luo, X., Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2006). Student achievement and national economic growth. American Journal of Education, 113(1), pp.1–29. Yuan, S. (2013). Educational policies and economic growth in BRICS: Comparative perspectives. Knowledge Cultures, 3(1), 32–44.

Abbreviations

ABL B.A. BCI B.Ed. B.El.Ed. BRICS BTC CABE CBSE CENTA CPD CTE D.Ed. D.El.Ed. DIET DISE DPEP EFA GDP GoI HCT HLM HP IASE ICSE ICT INSET IRB KSQAAC M.A. MDGs M.Ed.

Active-Based Learning Bachelor of Arts British Council, India Bachelor of Education Bachelor in Elementary Education Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa Basic Training Certificate Central Advisory Board of Education Central Board of Secondary Education Center for Teacher Accreditation Continuous Professional Development Colleges of Teacher Education Diploma in Education Diploma in Elementary Education District Institute of Education and Training District Information System for Education District Primary Education Program Education for All Gross Domestic Product Government of India Human Capital Theory Hierarchical Linear Model Himanchal Pradesh Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Information and Communications Technology In-Service Education and Training Institutional Review Board Karnataka School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Council Master of Education Millennium Development Goals Master of Arts

Abbreviations MHRD MOE NAEP NAS NCERT NCF NCFTE NCLB NCTE NEP NEUPA NGO NPE NTT NTTQV OECD PARAKH

xv

Ministry of Human Resource Development Ministry of Education National Assessment of Education Program National Achievement Survey National Council of Educational Research and Training National Curriculum Framework National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education No Child Left Behind Act National Council for Teacher Education National Education Policy National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration Non-Governmental Organisation National Policy on Education Nursery Teacher Training Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Variables Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development PERCCERT Percentafe of Certified Teachers PERCQUAL Percentage of Qualified Teachers PINDICS Performance Indicators for Elementary School PISA Programme for International Student Assessment PMOST Program for Mass Orientation of School Teachers PRESET Pre-Service Teacher Education PROBE Public Report on Basic Education PTR Pupil–Teacher Ratio RMSA Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan RQ1 Research Question 1 RQ2 Research Question 2 RTE Right to Education SACMEQ Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality SCERT State Council of Educational Research and Training SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SEQI School Education Quality Index SES Student Socioeconomic Status SOPT Special Orientation Program for Teachers SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics TEACHBEHA Teacher Behavior TET Teacher Education Test TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study TN Tamil Nadu TTIs Teacher Training Institutions TTQ Traditional Teacher Quality

xvi Abbreviations UEE UNESCO USE VAM

Universal Elementary Education United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Unified State Exam Value-Added Measure

1

Introduction The Impact of National Policy on Teacher Quality in India

Decades of research have shown that education has a major role to play in the economic growth of countries (Lin & Yang 2009; Mathew, 1987; Sanders & Barth, 1968). In India, the quality of education is better than most of its neighboring countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh (Kingdon, 2007) although lower in comparison to other Asian countries like China and Korea, for example. As these countries have a higher level of economic growth than India, it brought forth the question of the connection between education and economic growth (Kotaskova et al., 2018). Research has repeatedly shown that India’s economic strength and the social well-being of its people are closely linked to its education sector (Goel, 1974; Mukherjee, 2009; Tilak, 2005). Since India’s independence from Britain in 1947, education specifically has been a chief contributing factor to the nation’s development and also a major concern of the Indian government. These concerns and the importance of education in India are, not surprisingly, reflected in its curriculum frameworks and education policies. These frameworks and policies reflect the fact that Indian educational administrators, policymakers, and the general public hold teachers primarily responsible for student learning, and, therefore, the training and professional development of teachers are deeply embedded in India’s national education policies. Despite the widespread belief that improving education through the development of teacher quality enhances learner performance (Darling-Hammond, 2000, Goldhaber & Anthony, 2003; Seebruck, 2015; Sirat, 2016) policy analysts worldwide have surprisingly little empirical data on which to base this assumption. Even though India’s low-ranking performance on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009 has been blamed on poor teacher quality (Chhapia, 2013; Edwards, 2017) there have been few attempts to analyze India’s performance on PISA 2009 on the basis of teacher quality variables. In fact, there is relatively little empirical research on the impact of teacher quality on Indian student performance and the role that national education policy plays in developing teacher quality in India. The relationship between national education policy, teacher quality, and student outcomes is underexplored more broadly as well, but India provides a remarkable test case to examine these connections.

2 Introduction The focus on teachers as part of Indian national education policy is evident in the five key policy developments from the early 21st century. First, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in India made a decision in 2004 to revise the existing National Curriculum Framework (NCF) to improve teacher quality through revamping the existing teacher education with a vision to prepare every child in the country to grow both in India’s fast-changing world and in the global economy (NCERT, 2005). Second, the vision of the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) 2009, drafted by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), was intended to transform teacher educational institutions into centers of research and practical training to improve teacher education and quality in the country (NCTE, 2009). Third, is the Draft National Education Policy 2016 by the Government of India, which seeks to “address the unfinished agenda relating to the goals and targets set in the previous national policies on education and the current and emerging national development and education sector-related challenges” (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 6). Next are the Drafts of the National Education Policy 2019 and the Draft of the National Education Policy 2020. By the Government of India that reinforces the importance of quality education in India and provides an India-centric framework for developing the education sector in the country (GoI MHRD, 2019; GoI MHRD, 2020). Although few in number, previous research studies have established the relationship between teacher quality and student outcomes in India (Azam & Kingdon, 2014; Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011; Singh & Sarkar, 2012). Azam and Kingdon’s study (2014) on Indian teacher quality in private schools suggested that teacher quality matters a “great deal” (p. 4) in students’ achievement, and also that within schools teacher quality varies, impacting student scores. Muralidharan & Sundararaman (2011) showed how teacher incentives like performance pay help increase student performance, while Singh and Sarkar (2012) showed how teacher practices in the classroom affect Indian student performance. In each of these studies, teacher quality or factors related to teacher quality are shown to positively influence Indian student achievement. Additionally, for the first time, two Indian states, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh, participated in the international assessment of student performance known as the Programme for International Student Assessment (i.e., PISA) in 2009. The embarrassing results (Chhapia, 2013), where India ranked second to last amongst 73 countries, resulted in India opting out of the 2012 and 2015 cycles of the PISA assessment (OECD, 2010). The 2009 results revealed that not more than 15% of Indian children (15 years of age) who participated in the testing could perform basic mathematics skills. These relatively low performance results were considered by the Indian public and educational community to shed a harsh light on education quality in the country (OECD, 2010). Furthermore, an article in a leading Indian newspaper, The Times of India, publicized the poor performance on PISA 2009 by stating that an eighth-grade Indian student is at a similar mathematics level to a third-grade South Korean

Introduction

3

student (Raghavan, 2013). Likewise, this article argued that an eighth-grade Indian student in reading was also, on average, equivalent to a second-grader in Shanghai. Questions among the Indian public and educational community immediately arose following this highly public article related to the quality of Indian teachers, and teachers were blamed for the poor performance of Indian students as a whole (Rao, 2013).

BRICS and the Global Consensus on Teacher Quality India is one of the original members of the BRICS group. BRICS is an acronym used for the association of five developing economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. These five countries are distinguished from other emerging economies based on their demographic and economic potential to rank among the most influential countries in the 21st century. Due to an understanding of the importance of education for further improving their economies, BRICS countries are active in improving the quality and equity of education in their quest for academic and economic excellence (Shaikh, 2019). Each of the BRICS countries, however, also have country-specific concerns about their education sectors, and what characteristics of their educational systems might be affecting or inhibiting the quality of education nationwide. In Brazil, for example, although education is compulsory for children until the age of 17, most children do not continue on to higher education, thus limiting their chances of acquiring skills for high status, high-earning jobs and labor market productivity overall (Shaikh, 2019). Other BRICS countries also have concerns about educational quality. For instance, Russia’s education system is criticized for being more accessible to the urban rich. School curricula in Russia is focused on preparing students to get good grades on the centralized exams and is much less focused on authentic student learning and development (Francesconi et al., 2019). In China, the quality of education is geared towards standardized tests and test taking, but Chinese students are often critiqued for not being adequately prepared to face the real world outside of school (Mok, 2016). And, South Africa is lagging behind in numeracy and literacy skills with the apartheid system still impacting education quality (Sayed & Motala, 2019; Shaikh, 2018). Likewise, India is facing issues of inadequate education infrastructure and poor teaching, which critics suggest hampers not only student performance, but also access to education in the first place (Shaikh, 2018). The BRICS are also confronted with disparities in the quality of schooling at all levels, especially between rural and urban areas and in schools serving poor households (Maiorano & Manor, 2017). BRICS educational policymakers and educators realize that there is a dire need for the provision of quality teaching and learning in literacy and numeracy, supported by ongoing, evidence-based, teacher preparation and professional development (Vos & de Beer, 2018). In fact, this is a concern that is not only prevalent in BRICS countries. There is increasingly global concern and recognition that quality teachers are pivotal to

4 Introduction quality education (Azam & Kingdon, 2014; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2003). Researchers worldwide have repeatedly found that teacher quality impacts student performance (Abe, 2014; Fong-Yee & Normore, 2006; Goldhaber & Anthony, 2003; UNESCO, 2006). In fact, Goldhaber (2016) stated that teachers are the single most important school-related factor in student achievement and, thus, it is not surprising that the idea of teachers having the foremost impact on children’s learning has moved to the forefront of public opinion and national policy, where it remains. Commenting on teachers occupying a central role in schools as well as in a nation’s education policy, Hanushek and Rivkin (2006, p. 1053) stated, “there is a prima facie case for the concentration on teachers, because they are the largest single budgetary element in schools”. In addition, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) set forth the assertion that among the school variables that are “open to policy influence, teacher quality is the single most influential factor in determining student achievement” (2005, p. 2). Therefore, the role of teachers in student learning is given dominant status in public and policy-related discussions about education and its impact on social, political, and economic development.

The Varying Standards for Teacher Quality Given the global consensus on the specific importance of teacher quality in influencing the overall quality of education in every national educational system, it is surprising that there is no “standard” definition or measurement of teacher quality (Goe & Stickler, 2008; Mastekaasa, 2011). In fact, attempts to measure or estimate levels of teacher quality often lead to further questions that are neither specifically nor consistently answered. Thus, Goe and Stickler (2008, p. 1) comment: While many studies attest that some teachers contribute more to their students’ academic growth than other teachers, research has not been very successful at identifying the specific teacher qualifications, characteristics, and practices that are more likely to improve student learning. Unfortunately, this is just the information that education policymakers need the most. In fact, national educational systems, independent researchers, professional associations, and educators themselves around the world conceptualize and measure teacher quality in a variety of ways. Often, teacher certification and professional development are used as a component to define teacher quality. Wiseman and Al-bakr (2013) presented teacher licensing, or certification, as a “ubiquitous component of national education systems and pre-service teacher education around the world” and that the education systems in the Arabian Gulf states are “actively seeking to measure teacher quality through teacher certification” (p. 289). Likewise, in the United States, teacher qualifications are

Introduction

5

frequently used to measure teacher quality (Azam & Kingdon, 2014). Therefore, the importance of highly qualified teachers is reflected in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. It is based on the premise that teacher excellence is critical in improving student performance. Additionally, the NCLB Act believes that years of teaching experience, teacher certification, and teachers’ course completion are all indicators of high-quality teachers (Rice, 2003). Wiseman and Al-bakr (2013) also cite the ubiquity of quickly developing education systems in nations around the world measuring teacher quality on the basis of standardized student achievement test scores (pp. 289, 291). But this measure of teacher quality is also problematic because it directly measures students’ outcomes, not teachers. In respect to BRICS, a report by the OECD (2015) reveals that Brazil has taken many steps since the mid-1990s to improve teacher quality. Specifically, the 1996 Law on National Educational Guidelines and Framework mandated that all teachers attain a university qualification with in-service training and an increased number of practice teaching days (OECD, 2015). In Russia, teacher quality is determined by scores students achieve after completion of the eleventh grade, the final year of high school. Every student in the country takes the Unified State Exam (USE), which functions as a college entrance examination. The exam is considered high-stakes because of the massive number of students in Russia who participate and the key function it serves as a gateway to college entrance. Thus, teacher quality is determined by the scores students receive on the exam (Zakharov et al., 2015). In China, Robinson (2008), who researched the use of distance education and ICT in rural China to conduct ongoing professional development with teachers, stated that teacher quality is tied to instructors being able advance their skills and knowledge through ongoing professional development. He said that this is what led teachers to become higher quality teachers who can better contribute to their students’ achievement. And, in South Africa, where students score low in mathematics and language tests even when compared to other African countries, there is widespread agreement that the main reason for low performance in the country is the quality of education. Yet, there is little empirical data to enable policymakers to identify the root causes of low-quality education or marshal resources to improve it (Pournara et al., 2015; Sorto & Sapire, 2011). In India, a dominant focus is on the development of teacher quality as a key approach to improving overall educational quality. Although there is research on assessing teacher quality in India (Azam & Kingdon, 2014; Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011; Nanda, 2017), there is limited study on the clarity of the definition of teacher quality in the policies in India. Unfortunately, there is no concept of a highly qualified teacher, though in 2015 the Indian Minister of State for Human Resource Development extended the duration for teacher education in a bid to improve teacher quality (Nanda, 2017). Conducting a study in private schools in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, Azam and Kingdon (2014) proposed using the value-added measures (i.e., VAM) approach to

6 Introduction assess teacher quality in India. This outcome-based approach suggests that quality teachers raise their students’ academic growth from one year to the next year. The VAM approach to measuring teacher quality has been widely used in the United States, as well (Azam & Kingdon, 2014). One can see that while measuring or defining teacher quality, there is global overemphasis on indicators of teacher qualification, teacher certification, and professional development, which may be deemed “traditional” measures of teacher quality (Goe & Stickler, 2008). Wiseman and Al-bakr (2013) offer their critique of this “traditional” model of defining and measuring teacher quality by stating, “the fact is that some teachers facilitate student learning better than others regardless of their educational preparation and expertise in the subject matter, as measured by their certification” (p. 291). They acknowledge that measuring teacher quality is, indeed, “elusive” (Wiseman & Al-bakr, 2013, p. 289), and they affirm that there are other factors that are related to students’ learning in the classroom. But, other “non-traditional” teacher quality factors, which impact student outcomes, are largely ignored both in the research and by policymakers who influence practice in schools and classrooms. These traditional and non-traditional teacher quality factors are a key focus in this investigation of teacher quality and national education policy in India.

Teachers as the Fulcrum of Educational Improvement in India India is a prime example of “unity in diversity” with its multiple states, languages, religions, and cultures. While a rich cultural heritage is an important characteristic of the country, social hierarchies due to the caste system, the widening gap between the rich and poor, and the gap between the educated “elite” and the uneducated are also integral parts of Indian society. The classification of education, which distinguishes between “private” and “government” schools, is the result of the class inequalities, where only the privileged can afford to attend a “good education” system provided by private schools (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). Apart from this private/government dichotomization affecting Indian students’ access to education, it also affects teacher quality because teachers in private schools may not be qualified or certified by teacher education institutes under the government body, NCERT (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). India has over 28 states with as many as 22 regional languages and dialects including the official language, Hindi, which was declared following independence. The diversity of languages and multilingualism in India is a unique characteristic of the country and also a cause of concern in the education sector (Huisman et al., 2010). Although Hindi is the official language, it is not a native language for many, and hence there is no one medium of instruction for teachers throughout India. Indian teachers, apart from catering to the diverse academic needs of their students, have the additional task of accounting for dialectic nuances that influence student learning (Gelda et al., 2013). The three-language formula adopted by the Indian education sector in 1957 is now

Introduction

7

being replaced by bilingualism with English and Hindi or English and a regional language as a medium of instruction. In the three-language formula, during the first five years of schooling, a regional language is used as the first teaching language. During school years six to eight, a second language is taught as a school subject: Hindi in non-Hindi areas and another Indian language in the Hindi areas. From the third year onwards, English is taught as a school subject (Huisman et al., 2010). Now English is slowly becoming the dominant language of instruction in most parts of the country (Huisman et al., 2010), but unfortunately the historical legacy of the English language is affecting the quality of education in the country, especially in the rural areas as natives are not familiar with the English language. And, the effect of language on educational quality is being misinterpreted as a problem of teacher quality because teachers must include language proficiency as one of their areas of preparation. Furthermore, the National Curriculum Framework (NCF 2005) states that since the language used in mathematics textbooks is different from the language students use in their day-to-day living, it creates anxiety and fear in students. Therefore, it was recommended that the mathematics curriculum contain language that students use in their daily lives (NCERT, 2005). Indian policymakers, however, also realized the importance of English as a necessary means for international communication. Therefore, teaching in English could not be completely shut down either. These are but a few examples of how the country’s diversity poses many quality challenges, especially to teachers.

Introduction to the Indian Education System India is home to over a billion people (Cassen, 2016). In recognition of the challenge this population size poses, education has been given a valuable place in Indian society since independence from Britain and is considered a means to eliminate India’s vicious cycle of poverty, thereby raising the country’s economic productivity and international standing. In fact, the father of the Indian nation, Mahatma Gandhi, stressed the importance of education for both males and females as a source of developing a balanced human personality (Rani, 2010). But, the size of India’s population, and student population in particular, adds to the complexity of the system. For this reason, it has been suggested that India’s national educational system must maintain standards and uniformity, while “giving scope for its diverse culture and heritage to grow and flourish across the length and breadth of the country” (British Council, India [BCI], 2014, p. 3). To do so, the school system in India follows the levels of pre-primary, upper primary/middle, secondary, and higher secondary education. The Ministry of Human Resource Development governs the overall education system in the country alongside a Central Advisory Board on Education, with each state having its own Education Ministry (Anderson & Lightfoot, 2019).

8 Introduction Classification by Ownership As already mentioned, schools in India are owned either by the government (central, state, or local government bodies) or private entities (trusts, individuals, or societies). They are classified into three categories: (1) government schools run by state education departments where no fees are charged; (2) private aided schools where schools are managed by private bodies but funds (partially or fully) are received from the government; and (3) private schools unaided and not funded by the government, who persist by charging fees. The private unaided schools have their own fee structure based on the location and services provided (Shreekrishna & Gadkar, 2018; Singh & Sarkar, 2012). Since the private unaided schools are not homogenous in the country, some schools charge low fees while others cater to rich families and, therefore, have a high fee structure. The interesting point to note here, according to Singh and Sarkar (2012), is that the three school categories also fall under the recognized and unrecognized categories. The schools recognized or approved by the state government must fulfill certain requirements under the state government regulations regarding teacher–pupil ratios, qualifications, and so forth. The unrecognized schools are not affiliated to any board but still continue to run in the country, though the District Information System for Education (DISE) does not have data pertaining to such an unrecognized education sector. Classification by Educational Board Affiliations Education in India is under the control of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). It is an apex organization selected by the government of India to maintain quality in education. NCERT provides support to schools and ensures enforcement of national education policies. It also supports and advises the Ministry of Human Resource Development in maintaining the quality of school education and teacher education in India (Nirav, 2012; Shreekrishna & Gadkar, 2018). Acknowledging the importance of improving the teacher quality, the government also set up a permanent body for the selection of teachers known as the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). It conducts training and the selection of teachers and provides certificates and degrees for teachers, known as a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or Shastri education, which are essential for teachers seeking employment in schools (Nirav, 2012). However, the NCTE does not prevent private and unrecognized institutions from also providing training and certifications to teachers, and private schools readily employ such teachers (Nirav, 2012). Although the curriculum in all secondary schools in India is monitored and comes under one of the two main boards, which are the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE), the recruitment of teachers in private schools is solely at the schools’ discretion. Therefore, the quality of teachers in both private and public schools

Introduction

9

in India differs substantially. According to a report in The Times of India, many teachers in private schools in the country do not have the requisite teaching degree, and a few of them have not even completed their high school education (Raghavan, 2013). Thus, the Indian education system, which is vast and continuously changing, faces many challenges (BCI, 2014). Evidence shows that the number of private schools in India has been increasing since the 1990s due to a rising demand for education and a lack of adequate facilities in the government schools (Huisman, Rani, & Smits, 2010). However, since the private schools are not regulated by NCERT, the quality of teachers is questionable. The Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE, 1999, p. 56) in India found the following: Many teachers in our country have not had the benefit of a good pre-service training for their job. For most candidates who wish to be teachers, there is an acute dearth of good teacher-training facilities and the quality of training programs offered in the country is varied. Another problem is the content of the training course. For one thing, the content of the preservice courses has not kept pace with changes in the field. Secondly, it is assumed that the higher a teacher’s formal qualifications, the more suitable he or she is for the job. Thus, a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) would be preferred over a class-12 candidate with a BTC (Basic Training Certificate). Again, if there was a tussle between a B.A., B.Ed. and an M.A. (Master of Arts), then the latter would automatically be taken. Ironically, neither the B.A. nor the M.A. has any special relevance to young children, and the B.Ed. is really a pre-service training for secondary school teaching. Globally, evidence shows that teacher education worldwide follows a similar pattern of content and pedagogical knowledge (Wiseman & Al-bakr, 2013) although the teacher training method and duration may vary from country to country from a one-year to a four-year program (Ingersoll, 2007), In India, the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), a statutory body of the Central Government, is responsible for the development of teacher education in the country. According to the Ministry of Human Resource Development report (2015), the NCTE lays down norms and standards for teacher training, certification, minimum qualifications, course content and duration. It grants recognition to institutions who conduct teacher training and also monitors the standards. Additionally, there are government owned Teacher Training Institutions (TTIs) that provide in-service training to school teachers. The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) from 2005 emphasized that a new teacher education program should be formulated for pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher secondary, and graduate levels, and it should be provided through a recognized university. Also, the teacher education program should be a five-year program after the 10 + 2 level of school education followed by the country. The program should contain core competencies that

10 Introduction teachers at all levels from pre-primary to graduate levels will follow before their choice of specialization. NCF 2005 also stated that the teacher program should not be created in isolation but should be connected to the school curriculum, considering the regional context of the school’s location. Finally, the NCF 2005 position paper highlighted that the teacher program should have a provision for linking the pre- and post-training of teachers through the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) within university-based institutions (NCERT, 2005). Evidence suggests, however, that in practice there is little focus on the quality of teachers. The Teachers Curriculum framed by NCTE in 2006 (Naik, 2008) shows the lack of professional development for teachers in India, and especially little concern for preparing Indian teachers for constantly demanding and fluid classroom situations. The other issue that the Indian education system is facing is a high pupil–teacher ratio (PTR) due to an acute shortage of teachers and the PTR remains a “bone of contention” in the education system of the country (Vidyadharan, 2020). Therefore, to enhance teacher quality, India’s national education policymakers and educators will likely be forced to eventually examine the impact of teacher absenteeism and take appropriate measures. Kohli (2015) reports that in a few government schools in New Delhi, students are taught in corridors due to lack of space, and that there are also teachers who are absent for 40% of the working days. In fact, teacher absenteeism is seen as the “most crucial issue plaguing the government school system” (Kundu, 2019, p. 35). In a recent study, it was observed that there was a shortage of more than five lakh teachers in elementary schools in the states of Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, and Maharashtra and 14% of the government secondary schools have no more than a total of six teachers (Kundu, 2019). In short, teacher-quality-related policy and practice are partners in the development of India’s education system and in the influence on Indian student outcomes. Which Came First? National Education Policy or Teacher Quality? Despite the importance of teacher quality in India’s educational and economic growth, there is limited research on the influence that national policies have on India’s teacher quality and Indian student performance. Rather, there have been repeated criticisms of the poor quality of Indian teachers and the low education quality overall in India. Policymakers in India assume that teacher quality is a way to improve the overall education quality in the country and this is reflected in the various national policies they developed in the early 21st century. Five national education documents, as discussed earlier, with explicit teacher quality considerations are the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005, the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) 2009, the Draft National Education Policy (NEP) 2016, the Draft National Education Policy (NEP) 2019, and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

Introduction

11

Despite India’s poor student performance compared to international benchmarks, there has been limited study to analyze India’s performance on PISA, specifically. Perhaps the nature of international comparison is to only compare when there is something positive to show (Gayowsky, 2019; Sahin, 2008; Schoellman, 2009) but regardless of the reason little research has examined India’s PISA data. And, no research has looked specifically at the role or influence that teacher quality may have had on overall Indian education quality or student performance, in particular. Rather, there have been public criticisms of the poor quality of Indian teachers and the low education quality in India. And, as already mentioned, India purposefully opted out of the 2012 and the 2015 PISA testing cycles in order to not further “embarrass” itself (Venkatachalam, 2017). However, India will again participate in internationally comparative assessments of education (Banchariya, 2019; Venkatachalam, 2017). The Executive Committee of NCERT in India decided in 2004 to revise the existing (2000) National Curriculum Framework to create a balanced national education system. The decision came in light of the repeated concerns over the quality of learning and the unnecessary academic pressure on school-going children (Pal, 1993). The low quality of education was reflected in the low scores in literacy and numeracy assessment reported by the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007 results. Prior to the report, there were several recommendations made over the past two decades by several committees, including the Ishwarbhai Patel Review Committee (1977) and the NCERT Working Group (1984), to improve the quality of learning for young children in India. The curriculum development agencies implemented the recommendations more specifically, however, when the new curriculum was introduced by the National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1986 (Pal, 1993). Therefore, the NPE (1986) proposed a new curriculum framework to evolve a better quality and child-centered national system of education, which was called the National Curriculum Framework (i.e., NCF), in 2005. NCERT is responsible for reviewing and formulating the curriculum at regular intervals, considering the fact that a national curriculum cannot be a static document but should be revised regularly to reflect the dynamism and diversity of society, reflected in schools (NCERT, 2010). Therefore, the NCF 2005 is a result of revisions made to NCF 1975, 1988, and 2000 by the NCERT in consultation with the National Steering Committee, 21 focus groups, and the position papers prepared by these groups (Yadav, 2013). The NCF 2005 aimed to prepare every child in the country to grow in India’s fast-changing position in the world and global economy (NCERT, 2005), and for this, it focused on remodeling teacher education to make learning more relevant for children growing up into a “global” economy. The NCF 2005 model worked on the principle that if the method of teaching is relevant to the child, it will positively impact student learning. NCFTE 2009 developed by the NCTE gave a systematic and comprehensive framework for teacher education. The NCFTE 2009 viewed teaching as a

12 Introduction profession that required a well-planned and relevant education program and training like any other profession. NCFTE’s vision was to make the teacher educational institutions into centers of research and practical training to improve teacher education and quality in the country (NCTE, 2010). Next, the addition to India’s teacher-quality-related education documents in the early 21st century was Draft NEP 2016 by the Government of India. It is also called “Some Inputs For Draft National Educational Policy 2016” though for the book it will be referred to as Draft NEP 2016. The main goal of Draft NEP 2016 was on improving the quality of education and restoring its credibility. It sought to create conditions to improve the quality of teaching, learning, and assessment and to promote transparency in the management of education (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 14). Reinforcing the importance of quality education in India, NEP 2016 provided a framework for developing the education sector in the country including teacher quality. The Draft NEP 2019 aims to universalize pre-primary education by 2025 and to provide literacy to all by 2025 (GoI MHRD, 2019). To strengthen teacher quality, the Draft policy plans to transform the teacher education system by including a four-year integrated stage with subject-specific programs that will be offered in selected multidisciplinary institutions. The latest addition to the education documents in India is the NEP 2020 by the Government of India which aims to make commendable changes in the education system. Specifically in respect to teachers, the NEP 2020 acknowledges the reality of unmotivated and dis-spirited Indian teacher and proposes to completely overhaul the teaching profession to create a robust merit-based structure of tenure, salary, and promotion, that incentivizes and recognizes outstanding teachers (GoI MHRD, 2020). The national documents examined in the chapters that follow all address the question of teacher quality but do so in different ways. To examine the differences in Indian national education policies related to teacher quality, we categorize teacher quality indicators into either traditional or non-traditional factors. As mentioned before, there has been limited study in India on teacher quality with reference to PISA scores. Therefore, the context in this study is India with specific reference to the two states of Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh, since these are the two Indian states that participated in PISA 2009. The categories and subcategories of traditional teacher quality are teacher qualifications, teacher certification, professional development, and supervision. Non-traditional teacher quality categories and sub-categories include teacher salary/performance pay, teacher absenteeism, teachers qualified in the subject they teach, and teacher attitude.

Overview of the Book This book is organized into three parts to best reflect the situation of teacher quality and national education documents including policies in India in relation to student outcomes. Part I, titled “The Indian Education System and Teacher Quality”, examines the Indian education system, teacher education

Introduction

13

in India, and internationally validated approaches to measuring teacher quality. Chapters focus on introducing India, operationalizing teacher quality, an extensive and comparative review of empirical research on teacher quality, and theoretical frameworks relevant to national education impacts in developing country contexts. Part I includes Chapters 2, 3, and 4, which provide the framework for this book through the historical and policy background of teacher quality in India, create a conceptual framework to explain the Indian national education policy cycle, and identify the key conceptual and empirical distinctions between traditional and non-traditional approaches to teacher quality in India. Chapter 2 on “The Preparation and Development of Teachers in India” discusses the history and practice of teacher education in India in order to provide a comprehensive foundational understanding of how teachers are educated and trained in India. Specifically, this chapter examines the quality and quantity of teacher preparation and training programs in India both for pre-service as well as in-service teachers. The typical preparation and professional development experience of teachers at the primary and secondary levels are discussed, and the characteristics of the Indian teacher workforce – on average – are also summarized and critiqued. Chapter 2 further examines the education system, including teacher quality and preparation, of two states in comparison to the rest of India. These two states are Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh. Situated in the southern part of India, the state of Tamil Nadu (TN) is geographically the 11th largest state in the country, occupying 4% of the national area (Gupta, 2012). Although a poor state, TN is one of the “better off” states in the country in terms of literacy and student enrollment rates (Gupta, 2012, p. 1). Himachal Pradesh (HP) is a northern state in India and is largely Hindu. It is one of the least urban states in India. HP made a special effort to expand education and has risen in both educational infrastructure and enrollment since the late 20th century. Since every state in India is unique, teacher quality of the selected states of Kerala, Rajasthan, Assam, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and the union territory Delhi is also briefly examined. Finally, the teacher quality “crisis” in India is explained. Specifically, the reaction from policy and media to national education performance in India is presented as context for the teacher quality discussion. Chapter 3 maps teacher quality to education policy in India and then backward maps it again from education policy to teacher quality. In doing so, there are two main sections in this chapter. The first addresses the ways that national education policy in India have been formed in relation to teachers, teacher preparation and training, and teacher quality, broadly speaking. Some questions addressed in this first section are:    

What are some factors that are considered in formulating education policy? How do global developments impact national education policies? Why and by whom are education policies formulated? Why do some education policies fail to show results?

14 Introduction 

How has Indian education policy been influenced by international comparisons differently than by internal variation/comparisons of education?

The second section in Chapter 3 examines the connections between educational policy agendas and teacher quality. Specifically, questions addressed in this section include:   

What are the ways teacher quality manifests itself in countries through teacher qualification, pre-service teacher education, professional development, etc.? What are the policy perspectives on teacher quality in India? What are the key policies and characteristics of those policies that are intended to influence teacher quality and are empirically measured or translated into teacher quality?

In discussing these questions, Chapter 3 examines the policy Indian educational policy cycle. This cycle is comprised of three phases facilitated by three processes. The phases are (1) making a de facto education–economy link, (2) developing the Indian education policies, and (3) implementation of teacher quality reforms. But, these phases are also accompanied and facilitated by three process, which include (1) legitimacy-seeking, (2) scripting and modeling, and (3) decoupling. Legitimacy-seeking facilitates the de facto education–economy link through references to and alignment with international declarations about education, universal educational standards, global testing and accountability, and the BRICS economic development. Indian national education policies are modeled on the policies and reforms legitimized through the de facto education–economy-link phase, and then the committees who script these national education policies do so through the techniques of delegitimization and legitimization, the intensity of legitimization, and how legitimization of national education policies is contextualized. Finally, decoupling characterizes the implementation of teacher quality reforms in India. In particular, a lack of infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability ensure that teacher quality reforms in India have experienced failed implementation in the 21st century. Chapter 4 examines “Traditional and Non-Traditional Approaches to Teacher Quality”. Teacher quality has been traditionally measured through indirect outcomes like student achievement and other student outcomes. Therefore, this chapter examines more closely what previously used measures of teacher quality have been and how closely connected they are to the actual behavior, activity, and qualifications of teachers. In answering the question, “What is teacher quality from a traditional perspective and non-traditional perspective?”, this chapter then examines teacher quality variables that are considered “traditional” and “non-traditional” by past research and have been used by Indian educators and policymakers to define teacher quality. We then further compare and contrast the uses of “traditional” and “non-traditional” teacher quality

Introduction

15

measures in policy and practice globally compared to in India. The various “traditional” and “non-traditional” measures of teacher quality are operationalized in the Indian context and their perceived association or nonassociation with students’ outcomes is discussed in light of previously reported empirical studies. Part II, titled “Examining Indian Education Policies for Teacher Quality”, analyzes the five Indian national education documents issued in the 21st century in relation to teacher quality and the cycle of Indian national education policymaking. Chapters focus on data related to Indian teacher quality and connections between each national education documents and teacher quality in India. In particular, the contrast between traditional and non-traditional teacher quality references in the policies and the degree of alignment with globally legitimized, national contextualized, and the local implementation of these policies is discussed. In India, the importance of teachers is recognized as influencing student learning and is embedded in national education policies. The national documents examined in the following chapters suggest different approaches to improving teacher quality. An in-depth analysis of the major education documents in India since the beginning of the 21st century highlights which teacher quality characteristics – whether traditional or non-traditional – are the focus of Indian policymakers and educators. Part II provides in-depth and strategically structured analyses of the five national documents, including the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005, the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) 2009, the Draft National Education Policy (NEP) 2016, the Draft National Education Policy (NEP) 2019, and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 to see how Indian policymakers both use teacher quality as a cause and effect of education and national economic development. Chapter 5 explains the teacher quality discourse presented in the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005, and how it reorients the discussion to make teaching relevant to the child. NCF 2005 is the latest iteration of a legacy of revisions made to NCF 1975, 1988, and 2000 by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in consultation with the National Steering Committee and 21 focus groups (Yadav, 2013). The NCF 2005’s official aim is to prepare every child in the country to flourish in India’s fast-changing global status (NCERT, 2005), and for this, it focuses on remodeling teacher education to make learning more relevant for to the global economy. NCF 2005’s implicit theory of action is that if the method of teaching is relevant to the student, it will positively impact student learning and outcomes. Therefore, teacher quality and its development are critical to Indian education and a major focus of NCF 2005. The remainder of this chapter analyses NCF 2005 in respect to teacher quality both from traditional and non-traditional approaches and examines where NCF 2005 fits within the overall conceptual framework presented in Chapter 3 related to the policymaking and implementing process in India. Chapter 6 focuses on the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) 2009 developed by the National Council for Teacher

16 Introduction Education (NCTE), which gives a systematic and comprehensive framework for teacher education. And, in particular, NCFTE 2009 focuses on the professionalization of teaching. The NCFTE 2009 views teaching as a profession that requires a well-planned and relevant education program and training like any other profession. NCFTE’s vision is to make teacher educational institutions into centers of research and practical training to enhance the quality of education in India through improved teacher quality (NCTE, 2010). The remainder of this chapter analyses how NCFTE 2009 influences or frames teacher quality, especially in light of professionalization of the profession and preparation to enter the profession of teaching, and examines where NCFTE 2009 fits within the overall conceptual framework presented in Chapter 3. The next additions to the Indian education policies are the Drafts of National Education Policy (NEP) 2016 and 2019 developed by the Government of India. Chapter 7 explains how NEP 2016 and NEP 2019 aim to improve the quality of education and restore its credibility. The Draft of NEP 2016 seeks to create conditions to improve the quality of teaching, learning, and assessment and to promote transparency in the management of education (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 14). Reinforcing the importance of quality education in India, NEP 2019 provides an India-centric framework for developing the education sector in the country including teacher quality. Content analysis of the Draft documents show discourse on teacher quality in respect to traditional and non-traditional teacher quality variables in each Draft policy. And, finally discussion on how Draft of 2016 and Draft of 2019 fit within the overall conceptual framework presented in Chapter 3 is presented. Chapter 8 briefly introduces the latest policy – the National Education Policy 2020 – that replaces the earlier National Policy on Education (NPE 1986). The new policy revamps the Indian education system both at school level and higher education level. It brings massive changes in school education that includes change in curriculum, language, assessment, online education, etc. It acknowledges the importance of teachers and proposes to completely overhaul the teaching profession. Content analysis of the document reveals teacher quality discourse in relation to the chosen teacher quality variables. The chapter concludes with examining how the new policy fits within the conceptual framework presented in Chapter 3. Part III, titled, “Moving Beyond Policies for Indian Teacher Quality”, examines the teacher quality evidence using representative data from two Indian states and is followed by a summary chapter providing evidence-based policy recommendations to improve teacher quality in India. The title of this part suggests that in the 21st century, all of India’s national education policies, and the policy reforms specifically targeting teacher development, have failed in implementation. They have been policies only. It is time for India to move beyond the policies into the implementation phase in order to genuinely influence teacher quality nationwide. The point is that all five of the national education documents have made meaningful policy frameworks and recommendations for teacher quality reform, some better than others, but all significant

Introduction

17

and relevant to the improvement of teacher quality and education overall in India. The key is to not stop at the symbolic function of policy, which has been the norm so far, and to continue to the practical and strategic implementation of teacher quality reform. Chapter 9 is a turning point in the book, which comparatively examines India’s teacher quality in relation to international standards using internationally comparative data to do so. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international survey, which aims to evaluate education systems globally by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. PISA assesses how well students can apply what they learn in school to real-life situations. PISA tests are administered every three years to 15-yearolds in 65 countries, regardless of grade, achievement, and socio-economic status. India participated only once in 2009 and average Indian student performance was ranked second to last from the bottom. Unfortunately, in India, the PISA 2009 comparative data is now used to criticize the quality of education and to blame teachers for the poor performance of students (Chhapia, 2013). This chapter analyses teacher quality from both “traditional” and “non-traditional” perspectives using PISA 2009 data in relation to student outcomes for India. India’s teacher quality is compared empirically with other peer and target comparison countries as well. Chapter 10 provides evidence-based recommendations for national education policy development and implementation related to teacher quality in India. Analyses of the five Indian national documents and PISA 2009 data provides relevant information not only about how these documents frame teacher quality in India, but also which characteristics of teacher quality have the strongest relationship to student outcomes and perceived national economic development. Given these analyses in the preceding chapters several policy recommendations and the evidence for each are presented in this chapter. The information may assist Indian policymakers in adjusting the education resources to relevant teacher quality variables that increase student performance in the country. This chapter also provides a template for applying data-based decision-making to education policymaking and practice in India and other national education systems experiencing similar challenges, especially among BRICS countries.

References Abe, T. (2014). The effects of teachers’ qualifications on students’ performance in mathematics. Sky Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 10–14. http://skyjournals. org/sjer/pdf/2014pdf/Feb/Abe%20pdf.pdf. Anderson, J., & Lightfoot, A. (2019). The school system in India: An overview. The British Council. Azam, M., & Kingdon, G. (2014). Assessing teacher quality in India (Working Paper No. 8622). London, UK: International Growth Center. Retrieved from http://www. theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Azam-Kingdon-2014-Working-Paper.pdf.

18 Introduction Banchariya, S. (2019, February 4). What could PISA 2021 mean for India. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/what-could-pisa2021-mean-for-india/articleshow/67835819.cms. British Council, India (BCI). (2014). Indian school education system: An overview. New Delhi, India: British Council & British High Commission. https://www.britishcouncil. in/sites/default/files/indian_school_education_system_-_an_overview_1.pdf. Cassen, R. (2016). India: Population, economy, society. Dordrecht: Springer. Chhapia, H. (2013, June 1). India chickens out of international students assessment programme again. The Times of India. Retrieved from http://timesofindia.indiatimes. com/home/education/news/India-chickens-out-of-international-students-assessmentprogramme-again/articleshow/20375670.cms. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. doi:10.14507/ epaa.v8n1.2000. Edwards, S. (2017, October 25). Stop blaming teachers for education woes says UNESCO’s report. https://www.devex.com/news/stop-blaming-teachers-for-education-woes-saysunesco-report-91380. Fong-Yee, D., & Normore, A. H. (2006). The impact of quality teachers on student achievement. Digitalcommons.fiu.edu. http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/view content.cgi?article=1054&context=sferc. Francesconi, M., Slonimczyk, F., & Yurko, A. (2019). Democratizing access to higher education in Russia: The consequences of the unified state exam reform. European Economic Review, 117, 56–82. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.04.007. Gayowsky, A. (2019). Reflections of an Ontario student teacher in Scotland: Cultural language and cross-cultural classroom management. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 71–77. doi:10.22329/jtl.v13i1.5993. Gelda, A., Narayan, V., Mudiyam, M., Raturi, K., & Seshan, N. (2013, January 2). ‘Needs improvement’: Despite progress, India’s primary education system has a ways to go. Knowledge@Wharton. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/needsimprovement-despite-progress-indias-primary-education-system-has-a-ways-to-go/. Goe, L., & Stickler, L. M. (2008). Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. (ED 520769). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED520769.pdf. Goel, S.C. (1974). Education and economic growth in India. Comparative Education, 10(2), 147–158. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3098057. Goldhaber, D. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most. Education Next, 16(2), 56–62. http://educationnext.org/files/ednext_XVI_2_goldhaber.pdf. Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2003). Teacher quality and diversity series. (ED 477271). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477271.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2016). Some Inputs for Draft NEP 2016. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/nep/inputs_ Draft_NEP_2016.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2019). Draft National Education Policy NEP 2019. https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_ files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource and Development. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/ NEP_Final_English_0.pdf.

Introduction

19

Gupta, A. (2012). Education status report: Tamil Nadu elementary education. Washington, DC: Center for Education Innovations. http://www.educationinnovations.org/ sites/default/files/India%20-%20State%20Education%20Report%20-%20Tamilnadu.pdf. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). How to improve the supply of high-quality teachers. Brookings Paper on Education Quality, 7–25. doi:10.1353/pep.2004.0001. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher Quality. Handbook of the Economics of Education. 1052–1075. http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/ files/publications/Hanushek%2BRivkin%202006%20HbEEdu%202.pdf. Huisman, J., Rani, U., & Smits, J. (2010). School characteristics, socio-economic status and culture as determinants of primary school enrolment in India (Working Paper Nos. 10–109). Nijmegen Center for Economics (NiCE). http://www.ru.nl/nice/ workingpapers. Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). A comparative study on teacher preparation in six nations. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/145/. Kingdon, G. (2007). The progress of school education in India. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(2), 168–195. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grm015. Kohli, N. (2015, April 6). Not in the class. A story of India’s missing teachers. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/not-in-the-class-a-storyof-india-s-missing-teachers/story-8HITtop9bbJbL18cGC5U7H.html. Kotaskova, S. K., Prochazka, P., Smutka, L., Maitah, M., Kuzmenko, E., Kopecka, M. & Honig, V. (2018). The impact of education on economic growth: The case of India. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 66(1). doi:10.11118/actaun201866010253. Kundu, P. (2019). Deteriorating quality of education in schools? Are teachers responsible. Economic and Political Weekly, 24, 34–41. https://www.cbgaindia.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/06/Deteriorating-Quality-of-Education-in-Schools-EPW.pdf. Lechner, F. J., & Boli, J. (2005). World culture: Origins and consequences. Hong Kong: Blackwell Publishing. Lin, C.A., & Yang, C. (2009). An analysis of Educational inequality in Taiwan after the higher education expansion. Social Indicators Research, 9, 295–305. doi:10.1007/ s11205-008-9259-y. Maiorano, D., & Manor, J. (2017). Poverty reduction, inequalities and human development in the BRICS: policies and outcomes. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 55 (3), 278–302. doi:10.1080/14662043.2017.1327102. Mastekaasa, A. (2011). Brain drain? Recruitment and retention of high quality teachers in Norway? Oxford Review of Education, 37(1), 53–74. doi:10.1080/ 03054985.2010.527730. Mathew, P.I. (1987). Economics . The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 489(1), doi:10.1177/0002716287489001042. Mincer, J. (1981). Human capital and economic growth. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w0803. Mok, K. H. (2016). Massification of higher education, graduate employment and social mobility in the Greater China region. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 51–71. doi:10.1080/01425692.2015.1111751. Mokoena, S. (2012). Student teachers’ expectations of teaching as a career choice in South Africa (Part I), Journal of Social Sciences, 31(2). doi:10.1080/ 09718923.2012.11893020. Motala, E. (2019). The state, education and equity in post-Apartheid South Africa: The impact of state policies. New York: Routledge.

20 Introduction Mukherjee, R. (2009). The state, economic growth, and development in India. India Review, 8(1), 81–106. doi:10.1080/14736480802665238. Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2011). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39–77. doi:10.1086/ 659655. Naik, S. (2008). Mathematics teacher education in India: Demanding change and reform in teachers’ professional development (WG2). Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education. https://www.unige.ch/math/EnsMath/Rome2008/WG2/Papers/NAIK.pdf. Nanda, P. K. (2017, April 29). Government restructures teacher training system in bid to improve teacher quality. Live Mint. http://www.livemint.com/Politics/3cT5xQiUV qokfcBBDQfl1I/Govt-restructures-teacher-training-system-in-bid-to-improve.html. NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). (2005). National curriculum framework 2005. New Delhi, India: Author. http://www.ncert.nic.in/ rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/nf2005.pdf. NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). (2010). Position paper on teacher education for curriculum renewal. New Delhi, India: Author. http:// www.ncert.nic.in/new_ncert/ncert/rightside/links/pdf/focus_group/math.pdf. NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education). (2009). National curriculum framework for teacher education. NCTE. http://www.ncte-india.org/ncte_new/pdf/ NCFTE_2010.pdf. NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education). (2010). National education framework for teacher education. New Delhi, India: Author. Retrieved from http://www. ncte-india.org/ncte_new/pdf/NCFTE_2010.pdf. Nirav, S. (2012). Comprehensive essay on the structure of the Indian education system. http://www.nuepa.org/. OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining teachers. Paris, France: Author. OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2010). PISA 2009 at a glance. Paris, France: Author. OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2015). OECD economic surveys Brazil. Paris, France: Author. Pal, Y. (1993). Learning without burden. http://www.teindia.nic.in/Fules/Reports/ CCR/yash%20Pal_committee_report_1wb.pdf. Pournara, C., Hodgen, J., Adler, J., & Pillay, V. (2015). Can improving teachers knowledge of mathematics lead to gains in learners attainment in mathematics? South African Journal of Education, 35(3). doi:10.15700/saje.v35n3a1083. The PROBE Team. (1999). Public report on basic education in India. http://www.in. undp.org/content/india/en/home/library/hdr/thematic-reading-resources/educa tion-/public-report-on-basic-education-in-india.html. Raghavan, P. (2013, January 25). Why does the quality of education suffer [Blog post]. The Times of India. https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/minorityview/whydoes-the-quality-of-education-suffer/. Rani, G. (2010). Changing landscape of higher education in India: The case of engineering education in Tamil Nadu (Working Paper No. 36). doi:10.4016/9522.01. Rao, A. (2013, July 11). Many private school teachers lack proper qualification. The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Many-privateschool-teachers-lack-proper-qualifications/articleshow/21009574.cms. Rice, K. J. (2003). Executive summary. https://www.epi.org/publication/books_tea cher_quality_execsum_intro/.

Introduction

21

Robinson, B. (2008). Using distance education and ICT to improve access, equity and the quality in rural teachers’ professional development in western China. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1–17. (ED 801079). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED801079.pdf. Sahin, M. (2008). Cross-cultural experience in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1777–1790. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.006. Sanders, D., & Barth, P. (1968). Education and economic development. Review of Educational Research, 38(3), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543038003213. Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. http://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publica tions/3048.pd. Sayed, Y., & Motala, S. (2019). Equity and no fee school in South Africa: Challenges and prospects. Social Policy and Administration, 46(6). doi:10.1111/j.14679515.2012.00862.x. Schoellman, T. (2009). Measuring and accounting for differences in education quality. SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1329968. Seebruck, R. (2015). Teacher quality and student achievement: A multilevel analysis of teacher credentialization and student test scores in California high schools. McGill Sociological Review, 5, 1–18. https://www.mcgill.ca/msr/msr-volume-5/teacherquality-and-student-achievement. Shaikh, V. (2018, September 2018). BRICS power for higher education: what grouping can achieve. Financial Express. http://https://www.financialexpress.com/ opinion/brics-power-for-higher-education-what-grouping-can-achieve/1329531/. Shaikh, V. (2019). How Economy + Education Can Bind BRICS. https://education. siliconindia.com/viewpoint/cxoinsights/how-economy-education-can-bind-bricsnwid-14901.html. Shreekrishna., & Gadkar, R.D. (2018). The non-uniform school education system in India: A critical analysis. Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education, 15(9). http://doi.org/10.29070/15/57921. Singh, R., & Sarkar, S. (2012, October). Teaching quality counts: How student outcomes relate to quality in teaching in private and public schools in India (Working Paper No. 91). Young Lives. http://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/medi… 0f0b6497400069a/yl-wp91_singh_sarkar.pdf. Sirat, S. (2016). Does teacher quality affect student achievement? An empirical study in Indonesia. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(27), 34–41. https://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/EJ1115867.pdf. Sorto, A., & Sapire, I. (2011). The teaching quality of mathematics lessons in South African schools. Journal of Education, 51, 1–22. Tilak, J.B. (2005). Post elementary education, poverty and development in India. (Working Paper No. 6). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a 08c5b40f0b64974001174/Tilak_India_PBET_WP6__final_.pdf. UNESCO. (2006). Teachers and educational quality: Monitoring global needs for 2015. Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute of Statistics. uis.unesco.org/sites/ default/files/documents/teachers-and-educational-quality-monitoring-global-needsfor-2015-en_0.pdf. Venkatachalam, K. S. (2017, January 25). Why does India refuse to participate in global education rankings? The Pulse. https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/why-does-indiarefuse-to-participate-in-global-education-rankings/.

22 Introduction Vidyadharan, S. (2020, February 16). Pupil-Teacher ratio remains a bone of contention. The Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/ feb/16/pupil-teacher-ratio-remains-a-bone-of-contention-2104016.html. Vishwanath, J., Reddy. K.L., & Pandit, V. (2009). Human capital contributions to economic growth in India: An aggregate production function analysis. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 473–486. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27768219. Vos, D., & de Beer, L. (2018). A comparative study of the nature and role of education governance in the education systems of the BRICS countries. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 58(1), 77–95. doi:10.17159/2224-7912/2018/v58n1a5. Wiseman, A. W., & Al-bakr, F. (2013). The elusiveness of teacher quality: A comparative analysis of teacher certification and student achievement in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 43(3), 289–309. doi:10.1007/s11125-013-9272-z. Yadav, S. K. (2013). National study on ten year school curriculum. New Delhi, India: Department of Teacher Education National Council of Educational Research and Training. doi:10.18535/ijsshi/v3i8.01. Zakharov, A., Carnoy, M., & Loyalka, P. (2015). Which teaching practices improve student performance on high-stakes exams? Evidence from Russia. International Journal of Educational Development, 43, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.04.007.

Part I

The Indian Education System and Teacher Quality

2

The Preparation and Development of Teachers in India

India is a prime example of “unity in diversity” with its multiple states, languages, religions, and cultures. While a rich cultural heritage is an outstanding characteristic of the country, social hierarchies due to the caste system, the widening gap between the rich and poor, and the gap between the educated “elite” and the uneducated are also an integral part of Indian society. The classification of schools into either private and government schools is the result of class inequalities, where only the privileged can afford to attend a “good education” system provided by private schools (Vasavi, 2019). Although the government classification recognizes only three types of schools, which are government, aided, and private unaided (GoI MHRD, 2018), in reality there are nine types of schools that are differentiated based on cost, management, medium of instruction, and types of board exams. Broadly, they are as follows: 1) Ashramshalas (for Adivasi/tribal regions); 2) state-run government schools (including municipal, corporation, and panchayat schools); 3) state-aided but privately managed schools; 4) centrally aided special schools 5) low-fee paying, state-syllabus private schools; 6) private schools; 7) religious schools (Pathshalas and Madrassas run by religious institutions and trusts); 8) alternative schools run by independent or non-profit organisations; and 9) international schools. This school classification is the “most variegated and most class-based schooling system in the world” (Vasavi, 2019). Apart from such a classification affecting education access, it also affects teacher quality because teachers in private schools may not be qualified or certified by teacher education institutes accredited by the government body, NCERT (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). However, for this book we are focusing only on schools that are government recognized and included in the national policies. Additionally, India has over 28 states and eight union territories with their own regional languages apart from the language Hindi, declared the official language in India after independence.1 The diversity of languages, or multilingualism, is a unique characteristic of the country and also a cause of concern in the education sector in country which has over 200 languages (Erling et al., 2017; Huisman et al., 2010; Saraf 2014). The official language, Hindi, is not native for many Indians, so teachers across India are not able to use one

26 Indian Education and Teacher Quality language of instruction for all students. Teachers, apart from catering to the diverse academic needs of their students, have an additional task of accounting for dialectic nuances that influence student learning (Gelda et al., 2013). The three-language formula,2 adopted by India’s education sector in 1957, is gradually being replaced by bilingualism with English and Hindi or English and a regional language as a medium of instruction. Therefore, a western influence through the use of the English language for instruction is overtaking the language diversity in India, with English slowly becoming the dominant language of instruction in most parts of the country (Huisman et al., 2010). Unfortunately, English language hegemony is affecting the quality of education in the country, especially in the rural areas where natives are not familiar with it. Furthermore, NCF 2005 states that the language of instruction creates anxiety and fear in students because the language used in mathematics textbooks is different from the language students use in their day-to-day living, for example. Therefore, NCERT (2006) recommended that the mathematics curriculum contain language that students use in their daily lives. Indian policymakers, however, also realized the importance of English as a necessary means for international communication and commerce. Therefore, teaching in English could not be completely shut down in Indian schools. In addition to language, India’s educational system is populated by students and teachers from different religions, genders, castes and socioeconomic statuses, and ethnicities. In other words, there are multiple intersections across several diversity indicators in India. For example, India is a secular country with many religions, which means that unlike in other countries, religion has no natural place in Indian education. As a result, there are no religious studies included in the curriculum. Apart from religious and socio-economic diversity, India also grapples with gender and caste diversity (PROBE, 1999). Girls and minorities are at risk to miss out on education (Azam & Kingdon, 2016; Bose, 2012). The socio-economic conditions especially in rural areas pressurize parents to send their boys instead of girls to private schools that teach English and also charge fees. Additionally, the demand for child labor weighs more heavily on lower income families, where girls are also more likely to stay home to do household chores, rather than parents paying for their educational expenses (White et al., 2015). Thus, the country’s diversity poses many challenges, especially to teachers.

The Indian Education System According to a report in 2014 by the British Council of India (BCI) on the Indian education system: The Indian school education system is one of the largest and most complex in the world. The complexity of the system stems from India’s need

Preparation and Development of Teachers

27

to maintain standards and uniformity, while giving scope for its diverse culture and heritage to grow and flourish across the length and breadth of the country. (p. 3) India is home to more than a billion people. Indeed, education has always been given a valuable place in Indian society and is considered a means to eliminate the vicious cycle of poverty, thereby raising the country’s international standing and economic productivity. In fact, the father of the Indian nation, Mahatma Gandhi, stressed the importance of education for both males and females as a source of developing a balanced human personality (Rani, 2010). In India, each state has its own Department of Education with its own school system, textbooks, and evaluation system. These are all within the national guidelines issued by NCERT. Classification by Level of Education The school system in India (see Figure 2.1) follows the levels of pre-primary, upper primary/middle, secondary, and higher secondary education. The Ministry of Human Resource Development governs the overall education system in India alongside a Central Advisory Board on Education, with each state having its own Education Ministry (BCI, 2014). Classification by Ownership Schools in India are owned either by the government (central, state, or local government bodies) or private entities (trusts, individuals, or societies). They are classified into three categories: (1) government schools run by state education departments where no fees are charged; (2) privately-aided schools managed by private bodies but funds (partial or full) are received from the government; and (3) private schools unaided and not funded by the government that survive by charging fees. The private, unaided schools have their own fee structure based on the location and services provided (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). Since the private, unaided schools are not homogenous in the country, some schools charge low fees while others, catering to rich families, have a high fee structure. The interesting point to note here is that the three school categories may also be grouped into either recognized or unrecognized

PrePrimary

¥ 18 moÐ5 yrs old ¥ PreSchool

Primary School

¥ 6Ð10 yrs old ¥ Class 1Ð 5

Upper Primary/M iddle School

¥ 11Ð13 yrs old ¥ Class 6Ð 8

Secondary School

¥ 14Ð15 yrs old ¥ Class 9Ð 10

Higher Secondary

¥ 16Ð17 yrs old ¥ Class 11Ð12

Figure 2.1 Indian Education System (Cheney, Ruzzi, & Muralidharan, 2005).

28 Indian Education and Teacher Quality categories (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). The schools recognized or approved by the state government must fulfill certain requirements under the state government regulations regarding teacher–pupil ratios, qualifications, and other characteristics. The unrecognized schools are not affiliated with any board but still continue to run in the country, though the District Information System for Education (DISE) does not have data for any schools operating in the unrecognized education sector. Classification by Educational Board Affiliations Education in India is under the control of NCERT. It is an apex organization selected by the Government of India to maintain quality in education. NCERT provides support to schools and ensures enforcement of India’s education policies. It also supports and advises the Ministry of Education in maintaining the quality of school education and teacher education in India (Nirav, 2012). Although the curriculum in all schools in India is monitored or comes under the two main boards, which are the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE), the management of teachers differs substantially between private-aided and public schools in India. The management of private-unaided schools is very similar to the public or government schools in the country. Teachers in private-unaided/unrecognized schools are not regulated by NCERT and the recruitment of teachers in these private-unaided schools is solely at the schools’ discretion. The salaries of these private-unaided school teachers are therefore lower and hence more cost effective. According to a report in The Times of India, many teachers in private-unaided schools do not have the requisite teaching Bachelor of Education degree, and a few of them have not even completed their high school education (Raghavan, 2013), and are recruited based on the discretion of the management. A study by Goyal and Pandey (2012) states that student learning is probably higher in private-unaided schools than government schools due to low teacher absenteeism and small class numbers as compared to government schools. So, the non-traditional teacher quality variables like teacher absenteeism could matter more than traditional teacher-quality variables like teacher qualification. This could very well be the reason why the number of private schools in India has been increasing since the 1990s, where there is a migration of students from government schools to private schools (Kingdon, 2017). Although the RTE act 2009 has made it mandatory that no school can function without a certificate of government recognition, there still are clusters of private-unaided schools functioning in the country (Kingdon, 2017). In government schools, which still represent a larger share of the schools in India, despite the presence of qualified teachers and the higher salaries paid to them, learning outcomes are relatively low (Azam et al., 2016). A study by Kingdon (2017), revealed that though government teacher salaries are nearly four times that of salaries for teachers in China, India ranked 74th in PISA 2009 testing while China stood 2nd. In a developing country like India, monetary

Preparation and Development of Teachers

29

incentives continue to matter and, therefore, Kingdon (2017) recommended the need to link an increase in teacher salary to teacher accountability, both of which are non-traditional teacher-quality variables, to enhance student performance. Other further studies show lack of resources, poor infrastructure and facilities, and high teacher absenteeism rates could be some of the reasons that the private and government schools work differently in various states in India (Goyal & Pandey, 2012; Azam et al., 2016).

Teacher Quality in Indian States Within India, there were only two states that participated in the PISA 2009 tests, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh. Tamil Nadu has achieved near universal access in schools at both primary and upper level with attendance rate as high as 97%. Additionally, the teacher–student ratio is relatively low as compared to other states (Akila, 2009). The state of Himachal Pradesh also has a high literacy rate and boasts of housing reputed educational institutions for higher studies. Education, especially mathematics, is given priority in these states for its intellectual and spiritual importance and both these states are meant to showcase Indian education and development in literacy and enrollment. Although TN and HP were the only two states that participated in the international PISA testing in 2009, teacher quality in the states of Kerala, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Assam are also included to get clearer insight into teacher quality in the country. These states, per a report in the Hindustan Times, are considered top-performing states in terms of school education in the country according to the government think tank Niti Aayog’s School Education Quality Index (SEQI) (Dutta, 2019) which, despite the efforts taken by government in the various states to improve quality of education, remains low and teacher quality poor. The SEQI is based on 44 indicators, 29 outcome indicators, and 15 governance and management indicators. Tamil Nadu Situated in the southern part of India, the state of Tamil Nadu (TN) is geographically the 11th largest state in the country, occupying 4% of the national area (Gupta, 2012). The official language of the state is Tamil. Although a poor state, TN is one of the “better off” states in the country in terms of student enrollment and literacy rates (Gupta, 2012, p. 1). Per Census 2001, TN had an overall literacy rate of 73%. In terms of enrollment, the state has the highest enrollment in primary and upper primary education (Gupta, 2012). The high enrollments in TN are the results of various initiatives that the government of the state provided and not due to the quality of education imparted (Duraisamya et al., 1998). According to a study by Duraisamya et al. (1998), the government of the state provides free midday meals to every student in primary and middle school 365 days a year and also free uniforms and

30 Indian Education and Teacher Quality books to every child in the midday meal program. However, the high enrollments led to a skewed teacher–pupil ratio. Duraisamya et al. (1998) noted that between 1977 and 1992 the number of enrollments in schools across TN rose by about 139%, though the number of teachers increased by only 44%, affecting the learning of students. A dearth of teachers is blamed on a poor salary scale and lack of incentives. Initiatives like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) or literally the “Campaign for Universal Education”, a flagship program by the Government of India initiated in 2000 for achieving universal elementary education, play a major part in in-service training for teachers in TN (Kingdon, 2017). The objective of SSA, for example, is to keep teachers motivated and confident. However, Indian teachers may be demotivated and stressed due to their non-involvement in the strategic planning of a program borrowed from western culture, the Active-Based Learning (ABL) program, and also due to lack of adequate training to teach science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines (Ramachandran et al, 2008). An in-depth study on the quality of primary education in Tamil Nadu revealed that pre-service and in-service training was revamped in Tamil Nadu, with each student from the two-year teacher training program placed in classrooms for 40 days each year. However, the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) lecturers were themselves not qualified to train students to be quality teachers at the primary school level and were upfront in admitting it (Grover & Singh, 2002). Also, at times the DIET lecturers were made aware of the schedule and content they were supposed to deliver in advance, leaving them inadequately prepared to offer the training. Interestingly, of the 625 teacher training institutions in TN, 87% are private and unaided (Vaigaichelvan, 2013, as cited in Kumar, 2019). On a national level, 90% of the teacher education institutions are private, and per NCFTE 2009, this rapid increase and privatization resulted in poor and sub-standard regulation of teacher education. A report in The Times of India stated that the quality of teachers in Tamil Nadu is decreasing as most teachers are getting their diplomas or degrees from unrecognized institutions (Subramani, 2017). Most of these institutions do not have proper infrastructure or regular classes. The teachers trained from such institutions are of a very low caliber and unable to teach students properly, bringing the quality of education to a very low level (Subramani, 2017). For example, a STEM discipline, mathematics, was taught by unqualified teachers or qualified teachers with no proper training (Ramachandran et al., 2008) resulting in students unable to compete with other states within India. Since the system of education has been decentralized since the 1990s under the SSA schemes, the management of teachers is at the state or even district level. The result of this management structure is that teachers are not accountable to anyone and show no motivation for self-growth or improvement (Grover & Singh, 2002). Therefore, the state of TN that participated in PISA 2009 had a high rate of literacy that was not the result of high teacher quality.

Preparation and Development of Teachers

31

Apart from unqualified and dissatisfied teachers and increased privatization of teacher education, a high rate of teacher absenteeism and educational borrowing without adequate planning are issues resulting in poor teacher quality in the state. To improve quality education, the Tamil Nadu government is mainly focusing on traditional measures of in-service training to improve teacher quality by updating teachers on curriculum, syllabus, textbooks, pedagogy, and learning outcomes. Himachal Pradesh The state of Himachal Pradesh (HP) is situated in the northern part of India in the Himalayas and is the 11th most literate state in the country. The official language in the state is Hindi. HP is a top state in the country for a low student–teacher ratio, far below the minimum required ratio of 30:1 as mandated by the Right to Education (RTE) Act. However, the quality of education is low; hence, there is a flight of children from government to private schools as it is believed that education in private schools is better. A trend in the state has been to increase in the number of schools, and the government of HP is consciously moving from a focus on access to quality of education (Wad, 2017). The state of HP is a unique example in India of a high literacy rate, less gender bias, and less social discrimination in enrollment. For example, the gross enrollment ratio for boys and girls is 1:1. Although HP schools may have adequate educational resources due to the state policy and assistance from the SSA, there is a lack of trained and qualified teachers (Wad, 2017). In addition, many teachers in HP schools are contract or part-time teachers. This may negatively impact the learning of students and overall education quality in HP. The situation in HP reinforces the expectation that teacher quality impacts students’ learning and education quality. The government of HP consciously consolidated existing schools rather than increasing the number of schools and recognized the fact that consolidation of schools would be beneficial only if it were accompanied by an adequate supply of good teachers (Wad, 2017). However, like in the other states of India, a “good” teacher in HP remains undefined, although it is connected to better outcomes (Wad, 2017). The states of TN and HP have been showcases of India’s education and development in the areas of literacy and enrollment because their educational systems emphasized the development of traditional qualities of teacher qualification and training for improving teacher quality (Duraisamya et al., 1998; Ramachandran et al., 2008) and yet teachers in many schools do not possess any kind of a college degree. In TN, there has been an increase in private, unaided teacher training institutions, leading to low teacher quality. In the state of HP, teachers are likely to receive a Bachelor of Education degree within eight to ten months of joining the course (Lohumi, 2015). Apart from there being an acute shortage of teacher training facilities, the programs that train teachers are varied throughout India.

32 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Kerala The state of Kerala, which topped the SEQI in 2019, is situated on the southwestern Malabar Coast of India. Kerala is ranked the most literate state in India, with a literacy rate of 94% (Census India, 2011). The official language in the state is Malayalam. Various government initiatives have made the learning environment in Kerala government schools conducive to student learning. The SSA has contributed to the overall development of physical infrastructure in government schools by providing drinking water and sanitation facilities, thereby ensuring that the drop-out rates are low in the state (Fayaz & Mehta, 2018). In 2014, the government launched Athulyam, a program in which students were given an additional five months of training to complete their primary education. This initiative ensured 100% primary education completion for enrolled students throughout the state in 2016. From 2002 to 2009 there was a significant growth in the number of both government-aided schools and private schools in the state with improved physical infrastructure. However, despite the significant advances in educational facilities, enrolling and retaining students in primary schools, and revamping of the textbooks towards a constructivist approach, there is not much improvement in student outcomes as compared to the other states in India (Gafoor & Farooque, 2011). The Kerala government is focusing on teacher preparation or pre-service programs, though teachers are not well prepared to plan lessons leading to improved student outcomes in the state. The state of Kerala, in tune with the NCF, is moving towards the “constructivist paradigm” where students construct their own knowledge, but teacher preparation institutions are confused about how to train student-teachers on this important reform (Gafoor & Farooque, 2011). Though the state realizes the constructivist approach will improve student learning and outcomes, classroom teaching follows the behaviorist approach due to a lack of adequate training and a rigid education system. Teacher preparation institutes in Kerala still focus on syllabus completion and regulatory demands, and student-teachers focus on the direct demands of teaching a class (Gafoor & Farooque, 2011). This has resulted in Kerala teachers finding it difficult to plan their teaching to improve student learning. In an attempt to support and train teachers to improve quality of education in public schools, the Kerala government launched the Hi-tech school project under the Public Education Rejuvenation Project (Sanandakumar, 2018). However, there is little research or data to show the outcome or success of this project so far. Rajasthan A state in the north of India, Rajasthan has the largest area and is the seventh most populous state in the country. Per the 2011 Census, the overall literacy rate in the state is 66.5% (Census India, 2011). The official language in the

Preparation and Development of Teachers

33

state is Marwari. The state of Rajasthan is still nearly 27% below the most literate state, Kerala. However, according to the SEQI, Rajasthan now falls within the five top performing states in the country. Rajasthan’s government claims reforms like improvements to student–teacher ratios, reductions in teacher shortages, availability of subject teachers, and continuous evaluation have led to positive changes in the education system in the state (Rawal, 2019). However, there is little research to show any improvement in teacher quality or student outcomes in the state. Teacher absenteeism is a big issue in Rajasthan partially due to a lack of accountability and monitoring and partially due to low salaries and poor facilities (Duflo et al., 2010). Teachers are either absent from the school premises or from the classroom, thus affecting student learning. Research conducted in Rajasthan showed that an incentive program where teachers were given monetary incentives to attend school by the non-governmental organization (NGO), Seva Mandir, reduced school absenteeism. The incentives added to their low salaries, and teachers were motivated to be in classrooms thus improving student learning (Duflo et al., 2010). In 2013, a report by the global NGO Bridgespan “Transforming Government School Education in Rajasthan”, stated that Rajasthan ranked 24th among the 29 states in the country Bridgespan, n.d., para 1). These disparaging results gave a very clear message that if youth were to be equipped with skills and knowledge to be a part of the global economy and to improve the state’s gross domestic product (GDP), the government had to focus on improving the public school’s education quality. In 2014, the government of Rajasthan initiated Adarsh Yojana, in collaboration with the Bridgespan group. Adarsh Yojana had a vision to have a model school that provides quality education for a cluster of villages. This model school had better infrastructure in terms of physical amenities and also trained teachers. Adarsh Yojana resulted in increased enrollment in government schools, movement from private schools to government schools, and also improved student learning. Although the importance of trained teachers in student learning was recognized in the initiative, there is limited information on how teachers are trained, educated, and recruited. Although NCTE increased the number of teacher education institutions in Rajasthan, there has been no relevant change in teacher education. The institutions lack basic infrastructure and run like a “shop,” earning money rather than providing good teacher training and good quality teacher education (Singh, 2017, p. 13). Although NCTE granted recognition to the institutions, their monitoring is poor, resulting in the institutions running as commercial propositions and producing low quality teachers. Karnataka A state in the southwestern part of India, Karnataka has a literacy rate of 75.36% (Census India, 2011). The official language in the state is Kannada. Education

34 Indian Education and Teacher Quality in Karnataka is given prominence and is a critical part of economic planning and investment. There have been several interventions, like the District Primary Education Program (DPEP) in the 1990s and SSA in the 2000s, to improve school education in the state. However, the focus of both these programs in the state has been on increasing school enrollments and adequate school infrastructure. Critical aspects like student learning outcomes and teacher quality have been largely ignored. Government schoolteachers are reported to be overstressed and demotivated (Rajan, 2018). Schools are understaffed, which leads to existing teachers having to teach varied grade levels in one class. Most of Karnataka’s teachers are not trained to teach subjects and grade levels that they are expected to teach. Also, there is constant pressure from the administration to complete the syllabus, resulting in dissatisfied and poorly motivated teaching staff. The Karnataka School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Council (KSQAAC) monitors government schools and accredits them, though the private schools are not bound to it. In the city of Bengaluru, the number of private schools is increasing as parents are drawn towards the English education option that the private schools provide (Ghosh, 2018). Apart from language, the infrastructure in private schools is more conducive to learning and the teacher–pupil ratio is low. The private schools run with low student costs as teacher salaries are low compared to government schoolteachers. Government schoolteachers get at least four times the salary of private school teachers with no accountability (Kingdon, 2017). However, the quality of teachers in Karnataka’s private schools is questionable because private schools recruit teachers from non-recognized education institutes. Although salaries are higher in government schools, teachers have duties outside the classrooms, like census surveys and election duties, keeping them out of classrooms and thus affecting student learning. As the enrollment number in government schools decreases, many such schools in the city are closing (Navya, 2018). Assam A state in the northeastern region of India, Assam is the fifth most populous state in the country. It showed upward literacy growth in the 2011 census, measuring 72.19% (Census India, 2011). The official language in the state is Assamese. Nearly 73% of the population in the state reside in rural areas, out of which 80% of the children attend government run schools (Census India, 2011). Education quality in these schools is poor and focus in Assam, like the other states in India, is more on school enrollment than on improving education quality. Educational inequality, quality, and teacher performance seem to be a challenge at all school levels. There are a few studies that deal with the financial dimensions affecting teacher performance. The government allocation for education still remains low and is considered a reason for low teacher performance (Vidyasagar, 2006). A study in an Assam government school showed that a teacher performance

Preparation and Development of Teachers

35

pay program in the form of cash-bonuses mostly showed improvement in test scores of students (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011). But, teacher absenteeism is increasing in the state of Assam, and the government is looking at ways to curb this, like installing a biometric system of attendance where teachers have to check in daily (Mishra, 2018). However, very little has been written on how successful the initiative has been so far. The discussion on teacher quality in India would be incomplete without the inclusion of the two globally known cities – Mumbai, the commercial capital, and Delhi, the country’s capital. Mumbai is in the state of Maharashtra, while the city of Delhi is within the Union territory of New Delhi. Maharashtra A state in the western peninsular region of India, Maharashtra is the second most populous state in the country and the third largest state by area. The official language is Marathi. It houses 43 cities, Mumbai being one of them. Per the 2011 Census, the literacy rate in Maharashtra is 82.34% (Census India, 2011). Mumbai has one of the largest NGOs, called Pratham, which, in collaboration with UNICEF, government, corporate and civic entities, provides quality education to underprivileged children (Pratham, n.d., para 1). The NGO trains teachers, but there is little data available on teacher quality and training. Like the rest of the states in the country, private schools owned by trusts or individuals are the preferred option of schooling due to their better facilities and use of English as the medium of instruction. Government schools lack facilities and, due to the low fees, are the only options for low-income families. Apart from such a classification affecting access to education, it affects teacher quality too because teachers in private schools may not be qualified or certified by teacher education institutes accredited by the government body, NCERT (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). In an attempt to improve teacher quality in Maharashtra, the state government has mandated a Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for every teacher, in addition to a diploma in education (D.Ed.) or a bachelor’s degree in education (B.Ed.; Chhapia, 2013). Apart from this test, the State of Maharashtra has also set a minimum standard and qualifications for aspiring teachers. For primary school teachers, a D.Ed. and TET fulfillment is mandated, while for senior schoolteachers, a B.Ed. and TET is the requirement for selection. Teachers who want to teach classes in both primary and senior school will have to pass both TETs. Whether the government schools strictly follow these requirements is a question that remains unanswered due to lack of information. Delhi New Delhi district, the capital of India, is situated within the union territory of Delhi. Per the 2011 Census, the literacy rate in Delhi is 86.21% (Census India,

36 Indian Education and Teacher Quality 2011). The official language is Hindi. Among the initiatives to improve education quality in Delhi, the government revamped the SSA, by which the infrastructure of government-run schools was improved. This resulted in teachers feeling motivated, but it certainly did not improve education or teacher quality. The focus and monetary spending in these schools has been more on school infrastructure than on teacher training or performance (Banerji, 2000. There is a gap between the perception of quality between officials of SSA Delhi and teachers. The officials look at quality education and teacher quality based on the educational infrastructure and teachers look at the quality of education beyond providing basic facilities. Teachers complain that officials do not understand the meaning of quality education (Banerji, 2000). Recognizing the need to improve teacher quality, rather than blaming teachers, to improve student outcomes, various NGOs with government partnerships have been established in Delhi. STiR education, an NGO, provides support and training to teachers to enhance teacher autonomy, mastery, and purpose STiReducation, n.d., para 2). In fact, due to STiR, teachers in over 100 government schools in Delhi are motivated to use innovative strategies and examples from daily life to make classes engaging for students. Following the success with schools in Delhi, STiR collaborates with the governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, too (Dutta, 2019). However, there is very little empirical research to reveal the influence of the work of NGOs like STiR on teacher quality in terms of student learning. Summary of Teacher Quality in Indian States More than 2 decades ago, enrollment and access to education for children was a far-fetched dream for India. Efforts by the government and SSA, in collaboration with financial institutions, resulted in India almost achieving universal elementary education (GoI Ministry of Law and Justice, 2009). In 2009, the government launched the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhyan (RMSA) to increase secondary school enrollment. The government in key states in India invests and collaborates with various NGOs to provide education to every child in the country. However, the focus still remains largely on access, and quality education is largely ignored. The movement of children from the public to private schools is increasing, thus leading to unequitable education and a deeply stratified society. Though there is little research on teachers and teacher quality in the country, available data shows state variations with respect to issues relating to teachers. Kerala faces the issue of increased private schools where the government has little control over teacher recruitment, while in Assam and Rajasthan there is a rise in teacher absenteeism. Delhi’s significant problem is mainstreaming and Mumbai’s is achievement. Due to lack of space and overcrowding, Delhi still has a large number of students out of school as compared to Mumbai. Interestingly, evidence from government schools in Delhi and Mumbai showed that schools relied on parental support rather than on teachers and headmasters

Preparation and Development of Teachers

37

to support learning (Iyengar & Surianarain, 2008). Teachers generally lacked strategies and knowledge on how to work with a diverse set of students (Hossain, 2016). Cross-state variations exist in teacher vacancies due to governmental requirements of a smaller teacher–pupil ratio and also minimum educational qualification requirements (Chudgar, 2013). Additionally, variations also exist in teacher qualifications, and there is a large percentage of teachers who have less than a secondary school qualification, mostly in schools from the northern states of India. Teachers currently employed in schools are underpaid, undertrained, and hired on a contract basis. In fact, across all Indian states, approximately 30% of the teacher workforce is hired on a contract basis in public schools (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2013). Most of the contract teachers are from the states of Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. These contract teachers differ from regular teachers in respect to qualifications and training. Most of the contract teachers have only completed their secondary school education with no formal teacher education or training (Goyal & Pandey, 2011), and the rate of absenteeism is also high amongst such teachers (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2013). However, contract teachers’ salaries are only about one fourth of the salary of a regular teacher, which is the reason why many public schools hire contract teachers, irrespective of their education and training (Sen & Drze, 2014, in Kaul, 2013; Goyal & Pandey, 2011). A variety of education documents that are discussed in Chapter 3 seek to ensure equity in education, though student learning is still relatively stagnant across India. With the enactment of the RTE Act in 2009 and the adoption of the Universalization of Secondary Education (USE) framework by the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), the role of a teacher has emerged as most crucial. Sections 23 to 28 of the RTE Act pertain specifically to teachers. Section 23 of the Act specifies the qualifications and terms and conditions of teacher appointment. Section 24 of the Act details duties of teachers and processes for addressing grievances. Section 25 of the Act specifies teacher–pupil ratio. Section 26 of the Act the number of vacancies of teaching positions permitted per school. Section 27 lists out the non-teaching duties that a teacher may perform, and lastly, Section 28 prohibits private teaching activity outside the school (GoI Ministry of Law and Justice, 2009). Section 23 lays down minimum teacher qualifications to ensure qualified teachers are appointed. The Act seeks to ensure that teachers possess minimum qualifications to improve their teaching quality and, consequently, learning outcome of students. Teachers were given until 31 March 2019, to fulfill this requirement of Section 23. If the specifications of the RTE Act are diligently followed, all the states in India will have a level of homogeneity with respect to teacher qualifications at the time of employment, at the very least. However, there is no publicly reported empirical data to reveal the success of the implementation of Section 23 of the RTE Act. So, how does India train and educate its teachers? The next section gives an overview of the history and current scenario of teacher education in India. The

38 Indian Education and Teacher Quality history of teacher education is divided into the pre-independence (before 1947) and post-independence periods (after 1947).

Teacher Education in India India has one of the largest teacher education systems in the world. There exists university departments of education and their affiliated colleges, government and government aided institutions; private and self-financing colleges and open universities are also engaged in teacher education. However, the vastness and diversity of the country has led to lack of uniformity across the systems. Also, along with the growth of unrecognized private schools where teacher quality and recruitment are not controlled by the government, there is a high rate of growth of unrecognized teacher training institutions across the country whose standards are not controlled by the government. It is observed that private institutions lack adequate physical infrastructure, have incompetent and unqualified faculty and produce a large number of incompetent teachers (Singh & Shakir, 2019). However, the role of teacher education towards building a strong education system for nation building continues to be well recognized. Prior to independence, there was no concepts of states as they exist today. Rather there were 565 princely states that eventually have been divided into 29 states and 8 union territories.3 As the country achieved independence, the role of the state was dominant and it took over the wellbeing of its citizens by controlling infrastructure and economic development. One of the priorities given to each state was to provide free and compulsory education. Although, teaching is one of the oldest professions in the world, teacher education is a relatively new concept in India that came into existence after the country’s independence. Within the states, along with variations in the school system, there arose variations in teacher education where there was an increased number of private unrecognized teacher training institutions that the NCTE has been unsuccessful in curbing. As the country underwent social, economical, and political transformation, expectation of a teacher and the pattern of teacher education also changed. India’s current teacher education is a result of its transition from ancient to medieval to the modern period in the pre-independence era where the concept of teacher education evolved from teacher characteristics to teacher skills then to teacher training, and finally to the modern concept of teacher education. Pre-Independence In ancient India, education was largely religious, and the onus of teaching rested on the Brahmin.4 Education was centered around a collection of hymns and ancient religious texts called the Vedas. There was no teacher training and mostly the profession of teaching was hereditary in some Brahmin families (Saxena, 2007). There exist no records of any formal teacher training

Preparation and Development of Teachers

39

institutions, although the relationship between a teacher and student was considered vital and sacred (Saxena, 2007). Teachers in that era were expected to possess characteristics of “piety, religiousness, illuminated vision, high character, self-confidence, sound judgment, awareness of his social duties, efficiency and self-restraint” (Saxena, 2007, p. 2). The Gurukul education, as it was called, was a system of education where whoever wanted to study went to the teacher or the Guru’s home to learn anything ranging from the Vedas to the philosophies and the sciences including the art of warfare and also mathematics. Individualization of instruction was a critical feature of the Gurukul system where the Guru (teacher) imparted knowledge and skills to the Shishya (student). Education at this stage was oral and there was no transmission of knowledge into any form of writing. Students repeated what their teachers taught them orally and teachers were the banks of knowledge. Repetition and imitation were two ways for transmitting knowledge and in the later Vedic period became a way of transformation of scholars into teachers (Khatun & Ahmed, 2018). This means of transmitting knowledge continued until the Buddhist period (fifth century BCE). During the Buddhist Era, there was a change in the teachers’ role where the Buddhist monasteries and universities existed. Only monks could be teachers and they were considered the epitome of character, purity of thoughts, and generosity. The teacher–student relationship was an ideal one where the teacher was responsible for the overall development of the student (Chand, 2015; Saxena, 2007). Teachers were highly skilled and had mastery in many branches of knowledge. Education still being spiritual, curriculum also focused on moral and physical development of students (Masih & Vidyapati, 2018). There were centers of education like Nalanda and Takshasila (Khatun & Ahmed, 2018), and the mode of teaching was mainly oral in the form of debate discussion, question-answer, etc. Monks from different monasteries met to enhance their education and conducted themselves according to Gautam Buddha’s way of life. Buddhist education paved the way for the modern education system which broke the dominance of the Brahmins and developed universities to spread education. The period known as the Medieval Era under the Mughal rule saw growth of several universities. Mohammed Ghori, the sultan of the Ghurid empire, founded the Maktabs and Madrasas. Maktabs were the primary schools and Madrasas were the higher schooling where education was taught based mainly on the religious Islamic principles (Saxena, 2007; Khatun & Ahmed, 2018). Akbar, the Mughal ruler in this era, stopped this practice and along with Islamic study, he also provided study of Hindu religion and philosophy. The educational system was systematic and described in detail in a book called Ain-e-Akbari during Akbar’s rule (Saxena, 2007). Importance was given to reading, writing, and arithmetic at the elementary levels, and logic, science, and grammar were taught at the higher levels. The study of the Koran was compulsory, and verses were taught by rote learning, though debates and discussions were also modes of teaching. In Akbar’s reign, his Imperial library

40 Indian Education and Teacher Quality overflowed with books on philosophy, science, history, and religion, and any scholar who had access had a rich resource to enhance his knowledge. The monitorial system of preparing prospective teachers continued from the ancient period to the Medieval Era where imitation was the mode for teacher preparation. Experienced teachers appointed talented students to assist them in teaching, and this was the precursor to the current practical teacher training. Around the eighteenth century, when Europe gained world recognition due to its advancement in science, technology, and other subjects, the British felt the need to introduce English education in the country to bring in the modern education system and curriculum in India (Kumar et al., 2008). This period also witnessed teacher education getting due attention. The first teacher training institute in India was started in 1802 by Danish missionaries in West Bengal.5 By the nineteenth century, the need for systematic teacher training institutions evolved in the metropolitan cities of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. The focus of these institutions was enhancing student knowledge for academic excellence with teaching methodology ignored. In the year 1886, the first secondary teachers’ training institute, called the Government Normal School, was established in Madras,6 and between 1904 and 1912 further teacher training centers evolved with the passage of the Government of India’s resolution calling for secondary school teachers to have a certificate of teaching. Thus, the concept of the traditional teacher measure of teacher quality evolved: qualification and teacher certification. By the mid-1900s, the Hartog Committee recommended refresher courses and conferences for existing teachers to improve the quality of teachers in schools, giving rise to the concept of teacher training which in today’s modern era is called professional or in-service teacher training (Saxena, 2007). In 1937, the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi convened the Wardha Educational Conference to make teacher training more functional and practical, suiting the needs of students and the community. The training for teachers was divided into short term (one year) and long term (three years) training, focusing on what was called “Basic Education” (Saxena, 2007) which included all school subjects. The Sargent Report in 1944 paved the way for literacy and education in India. It stressed having capable teachers to teach students, and it suggested salary increases for teachers. Summary of Pre-Independence Education Education is not an unknown or a new concept in India and the passion for learning has its origin from the Vedic period, powerfully influencing the country. Thus, a teacher in India since ancient times has always been accomplished and competent in inspiring the younger generations. Though there were no formal education systems, teachers had the knowledge and skills that they gained in their own ways to create an enlightened society. There were similarities in the education system during the ancient and medieval periods, like the monitoring system, and the learning techniques of debate, and

Preparation and Development of Teachers

41

discussions. Saxena (2007) in her study asserts that the importance of a teacher in a student’s progress has been stressed in Indian society since the Rig Vedic age,7 and the country has always aspired and “inspired the presence of high-quality teachers” (p. 27). The European or western influence on pre-independent India changed the shape of Indian education where it became more systematic, though it would be incorrect to say if it was better or worse than the education system in the past. Rather, each phase has had its own achievements that are praise-worthy for the upcoming generations where the teacher’s role was valued in a student’s life. Thus, India has a history of recognizing traits or variables that a good teacher should possess and the importance of teachers in a student’s life. Post Independence Since the early 1900s, the Indian teacher education system has also expanded, but rather unevenly. The Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) (1999) in India found the following: Many teachers in our country have not had the benefit of a good pre-service training for their job. For most candidates who wish to be teachers, there is an acute dearth of good teacher-training facilities and the quality of training programs offered in the country is varied. Another problem is the content of the training course. For one thing, the content of the preservice courses has not kept pace with changes in the field. Secondly, it is assumed that the higher a teacher’s formal qualifications, the more suitable he or she is for the job. Thus, a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) would be preferred over a class-12 candidate with a BTC (Basic Training Certificate). Again, if there was a tussle between a B.A., B.Ed. and an M.A. (Master of Arts), then the latter would automatically be taken. Ironically, neither the B.A. nor the M.A. has any special relevance to young children, and the B.Ed. is really a pre-service training for secondary school teaching. (The PROBE Team, 1999, p. 56) Most parts of the country have poor infrastructure to train teachers, and out of the five million teachers, only 80% receive some kind of formal teacher training (Kumar et al., 2008). In an article by Singh (2017), it was rightly pointed that lack of trained teachers was a violation of the Right to Education Act, 2009 which categorically states that every child in the country has the right to quality education. Furthermore, student teachers get little practical experience due to a lack of infrastructure and professional expertise of the faculty. Also, the curriculum and training given to student teachers does not provide them with insight on the practical applications of subjects like mathematics and science (Kumar et al., 2008). Teacher education in India is regulated by the NCTE, a statutory body of the central government that came into existence in 1995. It is responsible for

42 Indian Education and Teacher Quality the planned and coordinated development of teacher education in India. The NCTE sets up norms and standards for teacher qualification and education programs from pre-school teacher education to post graduate-level teacher education. Teacher education research, pre-service training, and curriculum are all handled by the NCTE. Additionally, NCTE also grants recognition to institutions undertaking teacher education and has mechanisms to monitor their effectiveness. Under the teacher education programs, there are two programs. One is the pre-service (PRESET) that is imparted at the pre-primary, primary, secondary school teacher education level. The pre-primary education program is for students who have completed higher secondary school and the duration of the course called the Nursery Teacher Training (NTT) is one year. The teachers who complete NTT can teach classes from nursery to kindergarten. The primary education program is for students who have completed the higher secondary school and the course duration is two years. The elementary teacher education program is the diploma in elementary education D.El.Ed. or bachelor in elementary education B.El.Ed. that prepares teachers to teach grades one to five. The secondary teacher education program is a one-year program after graduation and the B.Ed program qualifies teachers to teach grades six through twelve (Bhalla, 2018). The in-service or INSET training is a teacher training given to teaching professionals. These are conducted at sub-district, district, regional, state or central level. At the national level, NCERT and NEUPA are responsible for the training and SCERTs and DIETs are responsible at the state and district level respectively (Bhalla, 2018). For pre-service training, the state governments fund the government and government aided teacher education institutions while the in-service training is largely provided for and funded by the central government under the SSA. The responsibility for day-to-day functioning vests with respective states and union territories. (Bhalla, 2018). The NCFTE 2009 has stated that education to teachers will be relevant and effective only if it is imparted by competent and professionally equipped teacher educators. To improve quality of teachers, the NCTE took up a number of initiatives in the last decade. A report in The Times of India stated that the NCTE is revamping the teacher education curriculum to make learning relevant to students and shift teaching to the constructivist teaching approach. Also, distance teacher education and ICT in teacher education will be monitored. Additionally, NCTE is also developing new and improved teacher resources for trainee teachers or teacher educators. NCFTE 2009 developed by the NCTE gives a systematic and comprehensive framework for teacher education. The NCFTE 2009 views teaching as a profession that requires a wellplanned and relevant education program and training like any other profession. NCFTE’s vision is to make the teacher educational institutions centers of research and practical training to improve teacher education and quality in the country (NCTE, 2010). However, the NCTE has failed to prevent entry of private and unrecognized institutions that provide training and certifications to teachers, and private

Preparation and Development of Teachers

43

schools readily employ such teachers, thus impacting quality of teachers (Nirav, 2012). India has many government-owned teacher training institutions to provide in-service training to teachers. The in-service training for teachers at the state levels is provided by the SCERTs and at the district level by the DIETs, and these are largely supported by central government under the SSA or NGOs and social enterprises. Although the number of pre-service education institutes in the country has increased, the quality of teachers leaves a lot to be desired. The degree programs do not give practical training to teachers in real classrooms and the short duration of the course does nor empower teachers with skills to improve student learning. Also, DIETs and SCERTs do not have resources to train teachers. Samhita (2016) further reports in Forbes India that, with respect to in-house training, the 20-day training by SSA is insufficient and there is no monitoring of the outcome of such training. The focus rather is on the stipulated period of “20 days”. There were two major policy-related developments influencing teacher education. One was the NCF 2005 and the other was the RTE ACT, 2010. NCF 2005 highlighted major concerns about teacher education. First, in teacher education practices knowledge is treated as “given”. Second, the language proficiency of teachers is poor. And third, there is no scope given to student teachers to reflect on their experience while teaching. NCF 2005 states that a new teacher education program should be formulated for pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher secondary, and graduate levels, and it should be under a recognized university. Also, the teacher education program should be a fiveyear program after the 10 + 2 levels of schooling followed by the country. The program should contain core competencies that teachers at all levels, from preprimary to graduate levels, qualify with before their choice of specialization. NCF 2005 also states that the teacher program should not be created in isolation but should be connected to the school curriculum, considering the regional context of the school’s location. Finally, NCF 2005 highlights that the teacher program should have a provision for linking the pre- and post-training of teachers through the DIET within university-based institutions (NCERT, 2005). Following recommendations of the NCF 2005, the NCFTE 2009 advocated a strong preservice education program to improve quality of teacher in the country. The launching of the 2010 RTE Act (discussed earlier) shows there is a need to recruit trained teachers because more than 30 million children in India are still out of school. Additionally, the distinction between preservice and in-service teacher training is blurred. In many schools (private and public), teachers without any training or qualifications are already employed and are now expected to get the required diploma or training within a time frame specified by the 2010 RTE Act (Nirav, 2012). Sadly, despite the efforts by India to give shape to teacher education, in practice today, there is little change in the quality of teachers. India participated in PISA in 2009 and performed miserably, and media and policy makers blamed teachers for the poor performance. India opted out of the 2012, 2015, and 2018 testing and the country is participating in 2021 testing.

44 Indian Education and Teacher Quality After nearly a decade, India’s decision to participate in the international testing in 2021 triggered mixed media and policy maker reactions (Edwards, 2019). Education advocates feel that the participation will assist in improving learning outcomes by showing learning outcome measurement across the world and this data can be used to restructure India’s education model. Another thought is that there will be no change even after 2021 testing because it is expected that India will continue to fare poorly as teacher training institutions in India continue to decline (Edwards, 2019). A leading newspaper, India Today, reports that Azim Premji, Chairman of Wipro Ltd., noted that teachers are not to be blamed for the poor education quality on his visit to government schools in Rajasthan. Rather, the teacher education system needed overhauling and teachers are to be empowered and supported (Premji, 2018). Another article in Quartz India stated that teaching practices need to change to improve learning outcomes (Joshi, 2017) and, for this, pre-service and in-service training for teachers need to be reformed. We can see that until now India has been struggling with regulatory decision making in attaining teacher training and education programs that would lead to improvement in teacher quality in the country. The different types of school ownership and economic and social inequalities makes policy making in teacher education a highly disputed area in India. The number of teacher education institutions in India has increased but without the required infrastructure and qualified teacher educators. The institutions are run more on a commercial basis rather than on the basis of increasing teacher quality, without adequate supervision and monitoring. The Teachers Curriculum framed by NCTE in 2006 (as cited in Naik, 2008) shows the lack of professional development for teachers in India with little concern for preparing teachers for constantly demanding and fluid classroom situations. There has been much focus on selected teacher variables or characteristics like teacher qualification and professional development and training since the early 1900s. However, the current scenario of teacher education in the country shows lack of quality teachers and needs to focus on other teacher variables to improve the teacher quality. The history of teacher education which paved the way for systematic education reforms and the current scenario where teacher quality is low reconfirm the necessity of analyzing critical policy documents to understand the role national policies have in developing teacher quality in India, which is the main objective of this book.

Notes 1 Twenty-two languages have gained constitutional recognition in India. 2 The three-language formula was adopted in 1957. In the first five years of schooling, a regional language is used as the first teaching language. During school years six to eight, a second language is taught as a school subject: Hindi in non-Hindi areas and another Indian language in the Hindi areas. From the third year onwards, English is taught as a school subject (Huisman et al., 2010).

Preparation and Development of Teachers

45

3 Union territories are special administrative sectors in India, which has eight UTs, Delhi being one of them. 4 In ancient India 600 BCE, Brahmins were considered the highest class in India (Saxena, 2007). 5 West Bengal state is situated in the eastern part of India. 6 Madras is now called Chennai and is the capital city of the state of Tamil Nadu. 7 The period between 1500–500 BCE was when the Vedas or the oldest scriptures of the Hindu religion were composed.

References Akila, R. (2009). Mapping educational policy structures and processes in Tamil Nadu. Educational Policy Research Series, 1(1). http://righttoeducation.in/sites/default/ files/eprsl1.pdf. Azam, M., Kingdon, G., & K. B. Wu. (2016). Impact of private schooling on cognitive skills: Evidence from India. Education Economics, 24(5), 465–480. doi:10.1080/ 09645292.2015.1110116. Banerji, R. (2000). Poverty and primary schooling: Field studies from Mumbai and Delhi. Economic and Political weekly, 35(10), 795–802. http://www.jastor.org. Bhalla, J. (2018). Computer access to teachers…reality or legend? Integrated Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 7–14. http://www.pubs.iscience.in/journal/index.php/ ijss/article/view/790/472. Bose, S. (2012). A contextual analysis of gender disparity in education in India. Sociological Perspectives, 55(1), 67–91. doi:10.1525/sop.2012.55.1.67. Bridgespan.n.d. Transforming government school education in Rajasthan. https:// www.bridgespan.org/bridgespan/Images/articles/bold-philanthropy-india/boldphilanthropy-india-rajasthan-profile.pdf. British Council, India (BCI). (2014). Indian school education system: An overview. New Delhi, India: British Council & British High Commission. https://www.britishcouncil. in/sites/default/files/indian_school_education_system_-_an_overview_1.pdf. Census India. (2011). Status of literacy. https://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/ data_files/mp/07Literacy.pdf. Chand, D. (2015). Education system in pre-independence India. International Journal of Applied Research, 1(2), 110–113. http://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/? year=2015&vol=1&issue=2&part=C&ArticleId=327. Cheney, G. R., Ruzzi, B. B., & Muralidharan, K. (2005). A profile of the Indian education system. Prepared for the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Chhapia, H. (2013, June 1). India chickens out of international students assessment programme again. The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/ education/news/India-chickens-out-of-international-students-assessment-programmeagain/articleshow/20375670.cms. Chudgar, A. (2013). Teacher labor force and teacher education in India: An analysis of a recent policy change and its implications. In Akiba, M. (Ed.), Teacher reforms around the world (pp. 55–76). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1108/S1479–36790000019008. Duflo, E., Hanna, R., & Ryan, S. (2010). Incentives work: Getting teachers to come to school. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1241–1278. Retrieved from https:// www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/9%20Camera%20Monitor ing%20AER.pdf.

46 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Duraisamya, P., Jamesb, E., Lanec. J., & Tanb, J-P. (1998). Is there quantity-quality trade-off as pupil-teacher ratios increase? Evidence from Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Educational Development, 18(5), 367–383. doi:10.1016/S07380593(98)00022-4. Dutta, S. (2019, October 1). Niti Aayog’s school education quality index: Rank wise list of states and UTs. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/ niti-aayog-s-school-education-quality-index-rank-wise-list-of-states-and-uts/story-sylg4 Q4bydv2PHg6NMtyMP.html. Edwards, S. (2019, September 20). India’s re-entry to PISA triggers mixed response. Devex. https://www.devex.com/news/india-s-re-entry-to-pisa-triggers-mixed-response-94286. Erling, E.J., Adinolfi, L., & Hultgren, A.K. (2017). Multilingual classrooms: Opportunities and challenges for English medium instruction in low and middle income contexts. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED586989.pdf. Fayaz, F., & Mehta. (2018). Analysis of education sector: Study of Kerala and Jammu and Kashmir. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 23(3), 44–51. doi:10.9790/ 0837-2303104451. Gafoor, A. K., & Farouque, T.K. (2011). Ways to Improve Lesson Planning: A Student Teacher Perspective. (ED 517056). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517056.pdf. Gelda, A., Narayan, V., Mudiyam, M., Raturi, K., & Seshan, N. (2013, January 2). ‘Needs improvement’: Despite progress, India’s primary education system has a ways to go. Knowledge@Wharton. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/needsimprovement-despite-progress-indias-primary-education-system-has-a-ways-to-go/. Ghosh, S. (2018, June 18). Public schooling: Why Kannadigas are abandoning government schools. Financial Express. https://www.financialexpress.com/education-2/ public-schooling-why-kannadigas-are-abandoning-government-schools/1209928/. Goyal, S., & Pandey, P. (2011). Contract teachers in India. Education Economics, 21(5), 464–484. doi:10.1080/09645292.2010.511854. Goyal, S., & Pandey, P. (2012). How do Government and Private schools differ: Findings from two large Indian states. South Asia Human Development, World Bank. http://2010.economicsofeducation.com/user/pdfsesiones/042.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resources Development. (2018). https:// www.mhrd.gov.in/statistics-category-new/school-education. Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice. (2009). Right to Education Act. Retrieved from http://mhrd.gov.in/rte. Grover, S., & Singh, N. (2002). The quality of primary education: A case study of Madurai and Villupuram districts in Tamil Nadu, India. http:// https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloud front.net/51230026/30.pdf?1483769419=&response-content. Gupta, A. (2012). Education status report-Tamil Nadu elementary education. Washington, DC: Center for Education Innovations. http://www.educationinnovations.org/sites/ default/files/India%20-%20State%20Education%20Report%20-%20Tamilnadu.pdf. Hossain, Y. (2016, October 20). Problems faced by Indian teachers in classrooms and outside. Careerizma. https://www.careerizma.com/blog/indian-teachers-problems/. Huisman, J., Rani, U., & Smits, J. (2010). School characteristics, socio-economic status and culture as determinants of primary school enrolment in India (Working Paper Nos. 10–109). Nijmegen Center for Economics (NiCE). http://www.ru.nl/nice/ workingpapers. Iyengar, R., & Surianarain, S. (2008). Education policy and practices: Case studies from Delhi and Mumbai. Economic & Political Weekly, 43(38), 63–69. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/40277978.

Preparation and Development of Teachers

47

Joshi, N. (2017, November 16). It isn’t the lack of benches and buildings that’s killing Indian education: It’s the mindset. Quartz India. https://qz.com/india/1131053/ it-isnt-the-lack-of-benches-buildings-and-teachers-thats-killing-indias-education-systemits-the-mindset/. Kaul, V. (2013). Amartya Sen is right about India’s education system. Live. https:// www.firstpost.com/business/economy/the-menace-of-rte-amartya-sen-is-right-aboutindias-education-system-978207.html. Khatun, R., & Ahmed, N. (2018). Teacher education in India: A historical perspective. International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, 3(2), 594–597. http:// d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/612024…Q_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLR BV4ZA. Kingdon, G. (2017, March). The private schooling phenomenon in India: A review. (Working Paper No. 10612). http://ftp.iza.org/dp10612.pdf. Kumar, S. R., Dewan, H., & Subramaniam, K. (2008). The preparation and professional development of mathematical teachers. In R. Ramanujam & K. Subramaniam (Eds.), Mathematics education in India: Status and outlook (pp. 5–105). Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education. Kumar, P. (2019). Teachers matter. Traditional and Non-traditional teacher quality measures in India. (Doctoral dissertation). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/ 228673516.pdf. Lohumi, B. P. (2015, June 28). Low on quality, government schools lose out to private ones. The Tribune. http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/himachal/education/lowon-quality-govt-schools-lose-out-to-private-ones/99880.html. Masih, A., & Vidyapati. (2018). Role of Buddhism in the development of Indian education. Techno LEARN, 8(1), 23–31. http://ndpublisher.in/admin/issues/TLv8n1d.pdf. Mishra, S. (2018, May 6). City government schools to get biometric attendance from June. [Blog post]. Gplus. https://www.guwahatiplus.com/article-detail/city-govt-schools-toget-biometric-attendance-from-june. Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2011). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39–77. doi:10.1086/ 659655. Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2013). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39–77. doi:10.1086/ 659655. Naik, S. (2008). Mathematics teacher education in India-demanding change and reform in teachers’ professional development (WG2). Unige.ch. http://www.hbcse.tifr.res. in/data/subra-data/2008-naik-subramaniam.pdf/view?searchterm=naik%202008. Navya, P. K. (2018, November 14). What ails Bengaluru’s government schools? Citizen Matters. http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/education-quality-in-bangaloregovernment-schools-deteriorating-28980. NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). (2005). National curriculum framework 2005. New Delhi, India: Author. http://www.ncert.nic.in/ rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/nf2005.pdf. NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). (2006). Position paper on teacher education for curriculum renewal. New Delhi, India: Author. http:// www.ncert.nic.in/new_ncert/ncert/rightside/links/pdf/focus_group/math.pdf. NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education). (2010). National education framework for teacher education. New Delhi, India: Author. Retrieved from http://www. ncte-india.org/ncte_new/pdf/NCFTE_2010.pdf.

48 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Nirav, S. (2012). Comprehensive essay on the structure of the Indian education system. http://www.nuepa.org/. Pratham, n.d. Primary education for all in Mumbai. http://prathammumbai.org. Premji, A. (2018, April 26). Don’t blame the teachers: Azim Premji. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/guest-column/story/20180507-azim-premjicolumn-on-indian-education-system-teachers-1221665-2018-04-26. The PROBE Team. (1999). Public report on basic education in India. http://www.in.undp. org/content/india/en/home/library/hdr/thematic-reading-resources/education-/ public-report-on-basic-education-in-india.html. Raghavan, P. (2013, January 25). Why does the quality of education suffer [Blog post]. The Times of India. https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/minorityview/whydoes-the-quality-of-education-suffer/. Ramachandran, V., Bhattacharjea, S., & Sheshagir, K. M. (2008). Primary school teachers: The twists and turns of everyday practice. New Delhi, India: Educational Resource Unit. http://www.eruindia.org/files/Teacher%20booklet%20edited% 20final%2028%20Oct%2008.pdf. Rajan, A. (2018, November 16). A school in the cloud contributes to quality of teaching and learning in Karnataka schools. Citizen Matters. http://bengaluru. citizenmatters.in/meghshalas-teaching-and-learning-app-for-teachers-students-parents28885. Rawal, U. (2019, September 28). Rajasthan ranks 2nd in national education survey. Hindustantimes. https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/rajasthan-ranks-2nd-innational-education-survey/story-f5sbccaLKjA2NZxQu1VA1L.html. Sanandakumar, S. (2018, January 26). Kerala set to digitize its government schools. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/ education/kerala-set-to-digitise-its-government-schools/articleshow/62666508.cms. Samhita. (2016, April 22). The parody that is teacher education in India [Blog post]. Forbes India. https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/economy-policy/the-parody-thatis-teacher-education-in-india/. Saraf, A. (2014). Language, education and society: Multilingualism in India. Language and Language teaching, 3(2), 18–21. https://apfstatic.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws. com/s3fs-public/Language%2C%20Education%20and%20Society_Multilingualism% 20in%20India.pdf. Saxena, C. (2007). A historical overview of teacher education in India from Rig Vedic Age till 1947. https://www.academia.edu/940530/A_Historical_Overview_of_ Teacher_Education_in_India_from_Rig_Vedic_Age_till_1947. Singh, A. (2017). Teachers crisis in India: 11 Lakh untrained teachers in workforce. https://www.ndtv.com/education/teachers-crisis-in-india-11-lakh-untrained-teachersin-workforce-1783246. Singh, R., & Sarkar, S. (2012, October). Teaching quality counts: How student outcomes relate to quality in teaching in private and public schools in India (Working Paper No. 91). Young Lives. http://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/medi… 0f0b6497400069a/yl-wp91_singh_sarkar.pdf. Singh, L., & Shakir, M. (2019). Teacher education: Issues and concerns in current scenario. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 6(2), 1082– 1091. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333193852_Teacher_Education_ Issues_and_Concerns_in_Current_Scenario. STiReducation, n.d. Why Intrinsic Motivation. https://stireducation.org/why-in trinsic-motivation/.

Preparation and Development of Teachers

49

Subramani, A. (2017). Quality of teaching is poor in Tamil Nadu, Madras HC observes. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/ tn-takes-a-step-back-in-school-education-policy/articleshow/72946031.cms. The PROBE Team. (1999). Public report on basic education in India. http://www.in. undp.org/content/india/en/home/library/hdr/thematic-reading-resources/educa tion-/public-report-on-basic-education-in-india.html. Vasavi, A. R. (2019, May 3). School differentiation in India reinforces social inequalities. The India Forum. https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/school-differentiation-indiareinforcing-inequalities. Vidyasagar, K. (2006). Educational challenges and role of teachers in Andhra Pradesh: A case for institutional initiatives. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 9(2), 178–198. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sch:journl:v:9:y:2007:i:2:p:178-198. Wad, S. (2017). School consolidation in Himachal Pradesh: Achieving quality and inclusion. Ideas for India. https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/human-development/ school-consolidation-in-himachal-pradesh-achieving-quality-and-inclusion.html. White, G., Ruther, M., Kahn, J., & Dong, D. (2016). Gender inequality amid educational expansion in India: An analysis of gender differences in the attainment of reading and mathematics skills. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 6(2), 153–182. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/313574283_Gender_inequality_amid_educational_ expansion_in_India_An_analysis_of_gender_differences_in_the_attainment_of_reading_ and_mathematics_skills.

3

Linking Teacher Quality to Education Policy

Education Policy Every country has education policies that govern the state of education and India is no exception to it. Education policy plays a vital role in the development of a country and if not well-planned, can lead to unexpected outcomes (Haddad & Demsky, 1995). So, what is education policy, and why is it required? Education policy has been defined as, “An explicit or implicit single decision or group of decisions which may set out directives for guiding future decisions, initiate or retard action, or guide implementation of previous decisions” (Waheed et al., 2015, p. 18). Every education policy has at least three essential features: (1) the actors that are the people who formulate the policy; (2) the process of formulating a policy; and (3) the successful implementation of the policy (Haddad & Demsky, 1995). But, policy itself is not an end product, but rather a continuous process that has no definite start or end (Bell & Stevenson, 2006). An effective policy is the one that is well-justified and offers a practical solution to a defined problem. Who the stakeholders or actors are in formulating a policy depends on the country’s political system. However, a welldesigned policy can fail if it is not backed by a strategically designed and monitored implementation plan. Likewise, policy implementation is successful only if it has changed the education system to the extent it has proposed in the policy (Viennet & Pont, 2017). For developing countries, a strong education system and an educated population is often considered to be a pre-requisite for economic development (Damon et al., 2016). Also, the United Nations has declared education to be a basic human right and the importance of education in global development has been clearly vocalized by the World Bank’s Sustainable Developmental Goal 4 which says, “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning” (Damon et al., 2016, p. 1). To achieve this goal, education policies are required. However, there is no single education policy alone that is universal or global. Every country has context-specific problems that need to be studied before formulating a policy that suits that country.

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

51

Post-Independence By 1947, when India gained independence from British rule, although there was improvement in areas of scientific and technological education and research, illiteracy was still high. There was high educational disparity between rural and urban communities, between women and men, and between the poor and the rich. There was non-existent primary education. In other words, there was the need for an immediate reform as the new democratic India opened opportunities for social and economic development that required educated and skilled people. The new Indian Constitution, which was and continues to be the fundamental law of the country, was adopted in 1950. A main goal of the Indian Constitution was the achievement of Universal Elementary Education (UEE): a responsibility which fell on the teaching force. It is well-accepted that amongst other factors, to achieve literacy and equity in the education sector of a country, quality teachers play an important role (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Therefore, uplifting teacher quality continues to be an important component in every education policy in India. To understand the link between policies and teacher quality in India, this chapter is divided into two main sections. Section I discusses India’s post-independence era when, to uplift the education in India, various commissions were appointed that eventually led to the first National Policy of Education in 1968.

India’s Continuous Journey to Teacher Quality Education Commissions Since pre-independence, the importance of teachers in Indian education was never underestimated, and after independence, the government of India appointed a number of commissions to revamp the educational sector including teacher quality for social change and upliftment of the society of Free India. Each of the commissions dealt with specific segments of education and not with the whole education system. Each of these commissions also, remarkably, recommended improving teacher status and quality in India. As Figure 3.1 shows,

1952–1953

¥ The University Education Commission

Lead: Dr. A. Mudaliar

¥The Secondary Education Commission

¥The Education Commission

1948 Ð1949

1964 Ð1966

Lead: Dr. Radhakrishna

Lead: Dr. Kothari

The National Policy of Education, 1968

Figure 3.1 Progression from Commission to the First National Education Policy.

52 Indian Education and Teacher Quality each of these commissions contributed to the next with the outcome being the National Policy of Education, 1968. The University Education Commission (1948–1949) This was the first education commission of Free India, appointed by the government of India under the chairmanship of Dr. Radhakrishna. The commission consisted of 10 members and was inaugurated by Dr. Abdul Kalam Azad, the minister of education at that time (GoI Ministry of Education, 1962). The commission was responsible for growth and improvement of education at the university level and it recommended that English be the medium of instruction and quality plus qualification of teachers be improved (GoI Ministry of Education, 1962). Just as the country was democratic, so was the process of devising the commission. There were questionnaires sent out to people to learn their expectations and recommendations for improving education in India. The commission received the responses from these questionnaires along with suggestions on how to improve university education in India. Teachers, students, and staff at various universities were visited and interviewed to understand the problem. The commission reported in 1949 that the quality of any university depended on the quality of instructors and professors. The report by the commission recommended a decent pay scale for the teachers and sanctioned study leave for them. In respect to teacher training institutes, the commission recommended remodeling the programs for more practical training (GoI Ministry of Education, 1962). At this commission, “teacher training” was given a new designation of “teacher education” (Bhattacharjee, 2015). One of the main results of the implementation of the report led to the state governments within India continuing to assume responsibility of education for their states while the central or national government of India continued to assume responsibility for the coordination of educational facilities and the maintenance of appropriate standards in higher education (Ghosh & Mohan, 2015). The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), is the oldest and highest advisory board in India that advises the national and state governments on various education-related matters. It was set up during India’s pre-independence era in 1935 and continues to play a leading role in the evolution and monitoring of educational policies and programs. The Secondary Education Commission (1952–1953) The Secondary Education Commission was under the chairmanship of Dr. A. Mudaliar, and it focused on school education in India. In its report presented in 1953, the commission recommended that the organizational structure of education be: four to five years of primary education followed by three years of basic secondary and lastly a higher secondary stage of four years. The commission recommended change in the mode of teaching from

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

53

memorization or rote learning to project-based, activity learning and group work (Khatun & Ahmed, 2018). The commission stressed that qualified teachers be recruited with adequate salaries, in addition to teachers with more than ten years of experience, and headmasters to inspect schools to ensure efficient functioning. With respect to teacher education, the commission stated that in-service and practical training should be given to teacher trainees and training for teachers should vary from one to two academic years based on whether students were graduates or held a higher secondary school leaving certificate. Also, trainee teachers were to be given a stipend and no fees were to be charged for trainee teachers studying in teacher training colleges (Kumar, 2004). The Education Commission (1964–66) The Education Commission, under the guidance of Dr. Kothari, gave recommendations for every aspect of the educational sector in India. The commission believed that education was the most powerful tool for the national development of India and asked for a revolutionary change in the system. It showed keen interest in teacher education and recognized the importance of quality teachers thereby recommending improvement in teacher education programs and in-service training. The commission report stated that teacher training programs should be two years for those who completed secondary schools and one year for those who completed graduation from universities (Kaku & Saini, 2015; Khatun & Ahmed, 2018). Stressing quality of in-service training, the report asked for universities and teacher training institutions to plan the programs for training. Teacher education and teacher quality had been on the agenda for all the commissions and were implemented by the government of India from time to time. The National Commission on Teachers (1983–1985), under the guidance of Prof. Chattopadhyaya, recommended a four-year training course after senior secondary leading to graduation from teacher education. Further the commission added a two-month extension to the one-year B.Ed. course to increase the number of instructional days. So far, the focus of the preceding commissions had been mostly teacher education. Prof. Chattopadhyaya’s report was the first one that recommended recruiting a teacher also on the basis of a good personality, communication skills, linguistic ability, world awareness, and social skills, apart from teacher education and training (Choudhury, 2017). Although there was no definition of the quality of a teacher during the first era of educational policy and development in India, it was widely accepted among India policymakers and educators alike that the quality of education in India depended on the quality of the teachers. The recommendations made by various commissions and committees regarding teacher education were implemented by the Government of India. It was realized by the Government of India that in order to increase the literacy rate and universalize school education, trained teachers were required in large numbers. Thus, after Independence, in order to

54 Indian Education and Teacher Quality provide teacher education, a number of public institutions were established by the central as well as the state governments. However, teacher quality in the country was not satisfactory. Certain steps were taken to ease the situation that included recommendations from various commissions, and as Figure 3.1 shows, various early education commissions led the way to formulating a much-needed national policy framework in India in 1968.

National Policies The National Policy on Education, 1968 The Education Commission (1964–1966), popularly known as the Kothari Commission, asked for state and nation level machineries to evaluate and reform the national standards of education. Recognizing the need for a national policy, the first policy on education, the National Policy on Education (NPE) was legislated by the Government of India in 1968. The policy, especially for school wide education reform, made recommendations regarding the service conditions of teachers, academic freedom of teachers, and in-service education. Teachers were again recognized as one of the most important factors needed to enhance the quality of education. The NPE 1968 stated: Of all the factors which determine the quality of education and its contribution to national development, the teacher is undoubtedly the most important. It is on his personal qualities and character, his educational qualifications and professional competence that the success of all educational endeavors must ultimately depend. Teachers must, therefore, be accorded an honored place in society. Their emoluments and other service conditions should be adequate and satisfactory having regard to their qualifications and responsibilities (GoI MHRD, 1968, p. 2) NPE, 1968 pointed out that there should be much focus on teachers’ in-service. NPE particularly brought to notice teacher qualities other than qualifications that were important to improve teacher quality. Although there was improvement in education facilities and the 10 + 2 + 3 system of education was accepted throughout the country, teacher status showed little improvement. The National Commission on Teachers (1985) revealed that the low pay and status of teachers was leading to capable individuals moving to professions other than teaching (Mangal, 2020). Drawing again from Haddad and Demsky’s essential features of an educational policy, the actors who played a critical role in devising and formulating the policy were the government of the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. Based on recommendations of a 17-member committee headed by Dr. Kothari, NPE 1968 was devised. Unfortunately, NPE 1968 was hindered by a lack of a detailed strategy for implementation as well as a lack of financial and organizational support. A recognized need for

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

55

better education for the growing Indian population led the government to formulate and implement a new education policy for the country, the National Policy on Education NPE of 1986. The National Education Policy, 1986/92 The second policy, the National Policy on Education 1986 (i.e., NPE 1986) was formulated by the government of the then Prime minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. Stressing again the importance of teachers and the respect that Indian society has for the teaching profession, NPE 1986 stated, “The status of teachers has a direct bearing on the quality of education, and NPE places complete trust on the teaching community” (GoI MHRD, 1986, p. 170). NEP 1986 and its Program of Action (POA) 1992 strongly advocated improving teacher quality as it was a prerequisite for improving education quality. The policy recommended teacher education be a continuous process and that its pre-service and in-service components are inseparable. It gave particular importance to the training of elementary school teachers, and designated that selected institutions would be developed as District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET). As a result, some training schools were upgraded to District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs), Colleges of Teacher Education (CTEs), and Institutes of Advanced Studies in Education (IASEs) (Mangal, 2020). To review the results of the implementation of NPE 1986 and POA (1992), the Acharya Ramamurti Committee (1990) and the Yashpal Committee (1993) were set up. In respect to teacher education, the Ramamurti Committee reported that internship or practical training was a critical ingredient missing from teacher education in India and should be adopted (Mangal, 2020; Mohan, 2019). The Yashpal Committee noted that an inadequate program of teacher preparation leads to an unsatisfactory quality of learning in school. Therefore, the B.Ed. program should offer the possibility of specialization in secondary, primary, or preschool education. The duration of the program should either be one year after graduation or four years after higher secondary. The contents of the program should be restructured and be relevant to the changing needs of school education. The emphasis should be on enabling the trainees to acquire the ability for self-learning and independent thinking. As a sequel to the NPE 1986, efforts were made to increase initial and in-service training to primary and secondary school teaching resulting in 500 DIETs, 30 SCERTs, 87 CTEs, and 38 IACEs (Mohan, 2019). However, despite the focus of NPE 1986 on in-service training, most of the institutions suffered due to a lack of adequately qualified and professionally competent teaching faculty, a lack of funds, and state governments neither willing to decentralize authority nor create adequate teaching positions (Rajput & Walia, 2001. Also, there is limited research on whether the in-service training has resulted in any improvement of student outcomes despite the huge investment and infrastructure that went into creating the in-service training.

56 Indian Education and Teacher Quality No doubt the NPE 1986 is a landmark policy that gave birth to many initiatives to overhaul teacher preparation in the country. In 1986 itself, the Program for Mass Orientation of School Teachers (PMOST) was launched to make teachers aware of new changes in policies, curriculum, methodology, and instructional strategies at the elementary school level. Soon thereafter in 1992, the Special Orientation Program for Teachers (SOPT) was launched to strengthen core competencies of teachers at the primary school level. Under this program, in-service training was provided to a batch of fifty teachers for a week by locally recruited people. The training module was designed and provided by the NCERT (Rajput & Walia, 2002). However, there were deficiencies in the planning and management of the schemes. Also, after implementation of recommendations of NPE 1986 and POA 1992, it was found that most of the in-service training continued to be sporadic short-term training for primary school teachers only. Rather than complementing each other, the pre- and in-service teacher education overseen by the DIETs started functioning as two distinct entities despite evidence that linking pre-service and in-service training is vital for the improvement of teacher education and to develop a quality teaching workforce (Mohan, 2019). The Draft Inputs for National Education Policy, 2016 There was a gap of nearly three decades before the Draft of the National Education Policy 2016 was initiated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). However, for this, MHRD initiated a collaborative and participatory consultation process. The committee report was submitted under the chairmanship of Mr. T. S. R Subramanian, former cabinet secretary. The report had inputs that proposed an education policy, which mainly targeted improving the quality of education at all levels by focusing on an incomplete agenda of previous policies and more current education sectorrelated challenges (GoI MHRD, 2016). The committee reported that the “teacher is a fulcrum around which school education revolves; it is rightly said that an education system is as good as its teachers” (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 65). The draft input noted that teacher management in the country was poor as there was a steep increase in teacher shortage, absenteeism in government schools leading to a high dropout rate, and lack of support for grievances by teachers. The draft recommended setting an Autonomous Teacher Recruitment Board. It also recommended that teaching licenses should be subject to renewal every ten years, and a four-year integrated B.Ed. course should be implemented. In respect to teacher education the policy states: In spite of the continued efforts for improving teacher quality and performance, the system for initial professional preparation and continuing professional development of schoolteachers continues to be characterized by several deficiencies. The current teacher education and training programs

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

57

are considered inappropriate in terms of equipping the teachers with the competencies required to cope with the new profile and roles expected of teachers and to enable them to carry out their duties in diverse social, economic, cultural and technological environments. (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 9) Draft of NEP 2016 is the first policy document that acknowledges that India is part of a transforming, global world, and that to meet the rapidly changing demands, the teacher education curriculum must recognize and reflect that teachers must be well-equipped with knowledge, skills, and the competent use of technology. Apart from teacher characteristics like teacher qualification and professional development, the Draft of NEP 2016 also links teacher accountability and teacher motivation to student learning outcomes (GoI MHRD, 2016). For reasons not disclosed by the government, the Draft of NEP 2016 did not translate into a national policy. The Draft of National Education Policy, 2019 With an aim that the next “NEP must be relevant and applicable for at least two decades, within the context of the dynamic and fast-changing nature of the education space in India and the world” (GoI MHRD, 2019, p. 24), the Draft of NEP 2019 was devised by a committee of distinguished members headed by Dr. K. Kasturirangan, the former chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). The process that led to the Draft was exhaustive and interactive. Consultations and opinions from public forums were encouraged and debated. The Draft of NEP 2019 is based on the foundational pillars of access, affordability, equity, quality, and accountability, and it draws input from Draft NEP 2016 and MHRD. Draft NEP 2019 recommends that in accordance to the developmental stages of children, the existing education system (10 + 2 + 3) be changed to 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 which is five years of foundational schooling, three years preparatory education, three years middle school, and finally four years of secondary education (Yermal, 2019). Reinforcing the importance of teachers, the Draft NEP 2019 says, “Teachers truly shape the future of our children – and, therefore, the future of our nation” (GoI MHRD, 2019, p. 113). NEP 2019 accepts that the quality of teachers in India is very low and to this effect it states: Today, however, the status of the teacher has undoubtedly and unfortunately dropped. The quality of training, recruitment, deployment, service conditions, and empowerment of teachers is not where it should be, and consequently the quality and motivation of teachers does not reach the standards where it could be. The high respect for teachers and the high status of the teaching profession must be revived and restored for the very best to be inspired to enter the profession, for teachers to be well motivated and empowered to innovate, and for education to therefore reach

58 Indian Education and Teacher Quality the heights and levels that are truly required to ensure the best possible future for our children and our nation. (GoI MHRD, 2019, p. 113) Rather than just mentioning that teacher quality in India is inadequate, the Draft NEP 2019 clearly states the issues affecting teacher and teacher education in India. The policy draft states first that teacher recruitment in India is faulty and does not choose the best talent for teaching; second, teacher education is severely substandard; third, there are severe shortcomings and suboptimal practices in the deployment of teachers; fourth, many schools lack infrastructure and resources for teachers; fifth, teachers are expected to spend a lot of time on non-teaching activities; sixth, professional development activities are insufficient for teachers; and seventh, there is no structured merit-based system for promotion, salary hikes, or similar supports (GoI MHRD, 2019, p. 116). By recognizing these obstacles to teacher education in India, the policy draft seems to change the teacher quality scenario in India. To improve teacher quality through teacher education, the policy draft mandates that all substandard teacher education institutes be shut down. Further, the Draft NEP 2019 proposes new, level-specific programs of teacher education in accordance with the 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 system of schooling within the four-year B.Ed. program, which are intended to include content, pedagogy, and practical training. Realizing the importance of teacher motivation, in respect to salary and promotion, the Draft NEP 2019 draft states that it must be based on outstanding performance and merit and through clear standards for evaluation – not on length of tenure or seniority. Draft NEP 2019 suggests that continuous professional development for teachers, though important, should be more self- or peer-oriented learning rather than pre-created modules that may not fit every teacher’s needs. The NEP, therefore, recommends a modular approach to continuous professional development where every teacher can choose what is useful and required for their own growth. The national policies summarized above each envisage a unified, national system of education across the nation. Teacher quality was also an important component of every commission and national policy in India throughout its history. Every policy from NPE 1968 has acknowledged the fact that the quality of education is critical for national development and teacher quality is undoubtfully the most important resource. Unsatisfactory education levels and inadequate teacher quality determined through poor student learning has been the antecedent or purpose for each policy. India is a large, growing economy and is diverse culturally, socially, and economically. Therefore, it is impossible for one policy to satisfy the demands of the education system. Also, as the economy and development of a country is never static, the policymaking process is continuous as it has to account for the changes. Every policy in India is formulated by a committee under the leadership of a distinguished leader. Article 246 (2) in the constitution of India proclaimed equal partnership of

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

59

national and state government in framing educational policies. However, for approval of any law related to education, article 254 of the constitution provides supremacy to the national government over states. Thus, since 1976, the national government formulates educational policies and state governments are required to follow them (Odhekar, 2012). Like the rest of the world, teacher quality is not clearly defined in India. However, there are certain teacher characteristics in respect to teacher quality, which policymakers highlight in the national policies. When NEP 1968 was approved as a national policy, personal quality characteristics, educational qualifications, and in-service training were highlighted to improve teacher quality, while in NEP 1986/92, teacher education/pre-service training, in-service training, and teacher qualification shared the focus. Although a Draft of NPE 2016 was not translated into a policy for reasons not disclosed, it recommended improvement to both pre- and in-service training and also highlighted teacher quality characteristics of teacher accountability and teacher motivation. The latest NEP 2019 has a much more comprehensive list of teacher characteristics, including teacher motivation, teacher accountability, teacher salary, teacher qualification, in-service/professional development, teacher qualification, and student-teacher relationships. As Figure 3.2 shows, it is notable that several teacher quality characteristics are repeated from NEP 1968 to the latest Draft of NEP 2019. The repetition of these same teacher quality characteristics suggests a potential gap between recommendation and practice. The 1968 NEP lacked adequate financial support, organizational support, and a definite implementation strategy, which led to a failure to implement the policy especially where improvement of teacher quality was concerned. Similarly, NEP 1986/92 was not able to anticipate the post-liberalization developments that have taken place in India, and thus its implementation remains

NPE 1968

¥Personal Qualities ¥Educational Qualification ¥In-service/Profession Development

NPE 1986/92

¥Pre-service/ Teacher Education ¥In-service/Profession Development

Draft NEP 2016

¥Pre-service/ Teacher Education ¥In-service/Profession Development ¥Teacher Accountability ¥Teacher Motivation

Draft NEP 2019

¥Teacher Motivation ¥Teacher Accountability ¥Teacher Salary ¥StudentÐTeacher Relations ¥Teacher Qualification ¥Professional Development

Figure 3.2 Teacher Quality Characteristics in Each National Education Policy.

60 Indian Education and Teacher Quality incomplete. However, as pointed out by the newsletter The Learning Curve from the Azim Premji Foundation, since 1990 no policy approval was required to make certain changes. For example, every policy has spoken about recruiting qualified teachers, but, in reality, to overcome teacher shortages, local youth with low qualifications are appointed as teachers on meagre salaries. These so called “contract” or “para-teachers” who represent nearly 7.3% of the teacher workforce as of 2014 (Ramachandran, 2018). Another example is unrecognized teacher training and education institutes. The policy clearly mandates teacher training and education from recognized institutes. However, in reality, in the early nineties private participation in the higher education sector has continuously increased. It has also affected teacher education, and a large number of private self-financed teacher education institutions with a profit motive have arisen throughout India. This has further led to many malpractices and commercialization of teacher education. Although there is a lot of time and money spent on creating policies, the lack of a definite strategy for implementation along with specific responsibilities and funds results in the failure of policy practice, which is obvious since NEP 1968 until the Draft of NEP 2019, policymakers are still looking at ways to improve teacher quality. What these various policies do demonstrate is that there is a national commitment at the highest levels among policymakers, educationists, and the general public that education is perceived to be the key to the overall development of India and that for education quality to rise, teacher quality is a pre-requisite. But, the disconnection between policy and practice progressively leads to the crisis of teacher quality that India seems to perpetually deal with. Finally, the list of teacher characteristics has increased since the Draft of NEP 2016 and is reflected in the Draft of NEP 2109. Are the changes in perception of teacher quality a reflection of the country’s needs or is it due to India being a part of a larger international community (e.g., BRICS) and the global economy? The next section will help us understand this. Conceptualizing Teacher Quality and Policy Development in India The history of teacher quality policy development and implementation in India is fraught with failure. National policy agendas have been painstakingly developed based on international standards and declarations only to be ignored or inadequately implemented at the state and local levels in India. This is an easy enough charge to make, but it requires justification and rationale to develop a framework for examining educational policy in India. There are three core phases in the progression to failed implementation of teacher quality reforms in India. The first phase is a de facto education– economy link. This link is de facto rather than de jure because there are several assumptions, which are not based in consistent empirical evidence to make this link. The first of those assumptions is that good school systems increase human capital. Educational policymakers and systems often approach

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

61

education as a form of capital investment in humans. Schultz (1961), Mincer (1981), and Becker (2009) have all examined ways that fiscal investment in humans, especially through education, results in a return on that investment in knowledge and skills that humans can then exchange for income or other monetary benefits. To this effect, the evidence presented in the following chapters suggests that human capital is the model Indian policymakers have adopted in their recommendations for education in India as a whole, and more specifically while focusing on teacher quality to improve student outcomes and the education quality in India (Batra, 2009). The second assumptions about the de facto link between education and the economy is that increased human capital gives nations an economic advantage in the competitive world system. This has been the blatant statement of Indian educational policymakers, especially when talking about competing in a “21st century” economy (Kumar, 2005). This rationale relies on the assumption that the human capital return on investment in education is not only individual, but also collective. In other words, while individuals may be able to improve their status or income as a result of educational attainment, the collective effect of a nation of more highly educated and likely knowledgeable and skilled individuals is that innovations and higher quality products will result from the collective efforts of a nation of highly educated individuals. A third assumption of the de facto link between education and the economy is that the quality of the school system may be measured by the average standardized test scores of its students. This is one of the reasons why India was so surprised by the results from their participation in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009. The overall average student achievement on PISA 2009 was significantly below the international average. There is also significant variation in achievement from state to state and within states in India, which suggests that although some education in India is stellar, other communities and schools (and teachers) fall far below that of other countries. As a member of the BRIC economic bloc, India is especially interested in maintaining its competitiveness with the other BRIC countries, but also with those more developed or economically stable countries, such as the core members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). A fourth assumption of the education–economy link is that nations whose students have higher test scores have better schools. This is in many ways a tautological argument, but the rationale has been applied in many educational contexts, especially in policymaking and public media. National education systems whose students consistently score in the top percentile, such as Singapore, Korea, and Finland, have been repeatedly extolled by other nations’ educational leaders and media as having the best education, schools, and teachers in the world (Deng & Gopinathan, 2016; Kim 2016; Takayama et al., 2013). Investment in teachers’ human capital results in improved student scores, a globally competitive and skilled workforce, and future economic returns for both the individual and the nation (Mincer, 1981). Therefore, policymakers

62 Indian Education and Teacher Quality should focus on the teacher quality variables that influence the student performance in mathematics the most. As explained previously in the discussion of human capital theory, human capital investment in appropriate teacher quality variables can result in increased skills, ability, and attitude and ultimately increased student achievement. Apart from gaining individual returns through competitive jobs based both locally and internationally, the skilled workforce can bring both economic enhancement for the country as well as global recognition. Finally, the fifth assumption about the education–economy link is that nations with high test scores will out compete others in the world market. Among countries in the West with the largest economies, such as the USA, this de facto assumption has been the driving force behind a half-century of national educational initiatives starting with A Nation at Risk and continuing through Race to the Top (Wilgus, 2019). India has reflected this de facto assumption as well in the national policies it has ratified since the turn of the 21st century (Kumar, 2019). The de facto education–economy link is reflected in Figure 3.3 as the origin of the Indian education policy development and implementation cycle, but this de facto link is also a result of broader social, economic, cultural, and institutional factors. The de facto link is a result of legitimacy-seeking behavior at the national and international levels. To ameliorate the risks of developing new educational agendas and initiatives, nations will look to other norms and values expressed by external nations, organizations, and institutions which have broadly or universally recognized legitimacy. In other

De Facto Education– Economy Link

• LEGITIMACY-SEEKING • International Declarations • Universal Standards Development • Global Testing and Accountability • BRIC Economic Development

Indian Education Policy/ies and documents

• SCRIPTING & MODELING • NCF 2005 • NCFTE 2009 • NEP 2016 • NEP 2019 and NEP 2020

Implementation of Teacher Quality Reforms

Figure 3.3 Indian Teacher Quality Policy Cycle.

• DECOUPLING • Infrastructure • Capacity • Sustainability

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

63

words, Indian policymakers make the five assumptions leading to the de facto education-economy link because they are seeking legitimacy for both the Indian national education system as well as for India as a nation in a competitive world system. Legitimacy-seeking at the national level is the result of several factors, as shown in Figure 3.3. First are international declarations related to educational quality and teachers in particular. Those international declarations that have shaped Indian education policymakers’ approach to teacher quality include, but are not limited to, the Education for All (EFA) declaration (Baker & Wiseman, 2007 as well as the Millennium and then the Sustainable Development Goals (MDGs and SDGs) (Nazar et al, 2018). EFA, the MDGs, and the SDGs all make statements about the importance of education to the development of a nation’s economy. In other words, these internationally legitimized declarations convey legitimacy to the de facto link between education and the economy. The development of universal standards related to teacher quality also contribute to the international and national legitimacy of applying those same standards to India’s teaches. Universal teacher standards include UNESCO’s Global Framework of Professional Teaching Standards (2019), the Universal Standards for Quality in Education (2017), the Education for All Global Monitoring Report: The Quality Imperative (2005), and the many national teacher competency and standards declarations (Call, 2018). An additional legitimacy-oriented educational agenda is fulfilled by the global testing and accountability movement. With the advent of international educational assessment such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and PISA, there is an ever increasing reliance on international testing participation, reporting, and comparison among national education systems (Wiseman & Davidson, 2018). The national education systems that perform at the highest levels, or at least above the international average, are often praised for their excellent educational systems. This educational prestige may then lead to further educational and often economic advantages because their country will be seen as a safe location for product development or that it has the human infrastructure to develop and maintain industry and commerce (Kobzev Kotásková et al., 2018; Psacharopoulos, 1984). Finally, as mentioned above, legitimacy-seeking may come from India’s involvement in the BRICS community. The international attention focused on Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as a result of their fast-growing populations and economies has been extended to educational comparisons as well (Carnoy et al, 2013; Chaudhary et al., 2012). Most recently in India, the attention has been on BRICS universities and the number of globally ranked universities in each BRICS country. Of all the BRICS countries, only India’s number of ranked universities fell between 2009 and 2013 (Playdon, 2020). And, the BRICS countries have entered into an education cooperation agenda to ensure that their educational development maintains

64 Indian Education and Teacher Quality their economic growth and predicted global dominance in the decades to come (Muhr & Azevedo, 2018). As Figure 3.3 shows, India has responded to these external factors by seeking legitimacy among the international economic community using education-related policies. The India policies are largely dominated by a human capital perspective, which assumes the de facto education–economy link. Human capital works as a key stimulus to promote a country’s economic growth. Schultz (1961) and Mincer (1981) each argue that education not only imparts knowledge but also changes one’s perception and expectations from themselves and from the society at large. They suggest that human capital in the form of human capabilities enhanced through education and training not only results in personal economic growth but also the economic growth of a nation. In the Indian context, Vishwanath et al. (2009) states various benefits of education as investment in human capital. He explains that education contributes to economic growth through research by “discovering, cultivation, and nourishing potential talent” (p. 475). Furthermore, the author states that especially in a developing country like India, as education opportunity for women increases, labor force participation increases leading to low fertility rates for women. Research has also shown that rate of return in education as capital as compared to rate of return physical capital in India is much higher than in other developing countries (Vishwanath et al., 2009). Mincer’s model of human capital divides individual skills into two categories: skills that are inherited and skills that are acquired. He focuses on acquired skills, noting that they differ over time between countries and are the result of education, training, experience, and mobility. According to Mincer (1981, p. 3), the acquisition of such skills incurs costs and benefits: the former are either direct or indirect and the latter are either private or public. The theory argues that the benefits of costs incurred on acquisition of skills are durable and not immediate, representing an investment in human capacity. Just like any other investment, Mincer argues that health issues or a skill becoming obsolete can result in the depreciation of a primary asset: human capital. A human capital approach suggests that developing countries should invest in health and education among other sectors to enhance that country’s human capital and thereby its economic development. As Quiggin (1999) states, “in the ‘human capital’ model, education is an investment that produces benefits in the future. Recent cuts in education spending will therefore reduce future national income” (p. 3). The human capital model embraced by this study, however, does not take into account the fact that learning need not always lead to higher monetary returns but can simply lead to a higher base of knowledge. Schultz’s model is very similar to Mincer where Schultz explains that human resources have two dimensions – qualitative and quantitative. The quantitative dimensions deal with number of people, the hours worked, and other

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

65

numerically measurable indicators while the qualitative dimensions are the “skill, knowledge, and similar attributes that affect particular human capabilities to do productive work” (1961, p. 8). He argues that if a country’s education budget is increased to enhance the qualitative dimension of the human resource, it will yield to better productivity and higher economic return. India is one of the fast-developing economies, but the low quality of education in the country is hampering growth of its global excellence (Dhawan, 2014). The low quality of knowledge and skills imparted in schools gives rise to unemployment in the broader society. The resulting talent shortage thus limits corporate growth and the economic growth of the country. India recognizes that success of any enterprise is largely dependent on its human capital and not just on its infrastructure (Batra, 2009). Therefore, the government recognizes that building human capital through education is a key stimulus of its economic growth (Sarkar et al., 2008) and, given the importance of a quality teacher in enhancing student performance, is focusing on teacher human capital. The teachers’ human capital is articulated as a focus on developing a stronger teacher workforce that has the capabilities, skills, and knowledge to positively impact student outcomes, and this is referred to as investment in “human capital” (Dhawan, 2014). The human capital model used in this study works on the principle that investment in education brings returns for the future that include individual economic growth at a micro level and the country’s economic growth at a macro level (Mincer, 1981; Quiggin, 1999). As the teacher quality improves by investing in teachers’ human capital, it will positively impact student skills and knowledge. Thus, the graduation rate in schools and colleges will improve, resulting in a stronger talent force. As Mincer (1981) states, “Schooling improves the efficiency with which people can absorb learning on the job, leading to greater job investments” (p. 10). The accumulation of individual human capital through quality education will lead to higher employment opportunities. As local and international corporations provide such opportunities, economic growth for the individuals and the country will result (Mincer, 1981). Research by Sarkar et al. (2008) revealed that such economic growth for India depends on its ability to revamp its educational sector, which is facing issues of equity and quality. The researchers further added that to improve India’s education system, investment in a capable and quality teacher workforce is a way to increase student outcomes and develop a future globally competitive and skilled workforce. Because of the costs associated to improve teacher quality, policymakers need to be aware of the appropriate areas to make the investments. Applying and adapting the theory to this study, teachers’ human capital in India is the knowledge, skills, attitude, motivation, and other measures or teacher quality variables, which have the potential to increase teacher quality and, in return, student skills and knowledge. India recognizes the economic

66 Indian Education and Teacher Quality return for the country by investing in education and teachers’ human capital and this is reflected in the national policies. The Education Production Function shows common inputs like school resources, teacher quality, and family attributes, with the outcome being student achievement (Hanushek, 2007). The inputs are easily measured and manipulated to get the desired output. The fundamental assumption governing the input-output model is that to achieve maximum output, here student performance, policymakers should focus on the input which is teacher quality. The development of Indian educational policies, therefore, follows the legitimacy-seeking “script”, which is not a prescribed script per se but instead is modeled on the declarations, standards, testing regimes, and economic consortia goals. Each of the Indian national education documents (NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, NEP 2016, NEP 2019, and NEP 2020) explicitly emphasizes the de facto link between education and the economy, and highlights areas relevant to each of the legitimized external influences. For example, shared norms, values, and ideals (also termed scripts) are now embedded in nations around the world as part of a world culture (Lechner & Boli, 2005). Lechner and Boli (2005) describe this rise of world culture around the globe as no longer being defined in European terms. Instead, they assert that “scholars agree that the rise of world culture is an outcome of globalization; as the world becomes more intimately connected in complex ways, growing links are given meaningful forms” (p. 438). According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, education was officially labeled as a human right in 1948, thus contributing to its evolution to a globally shared value, where all nation-states must provide, at a minimum, primary education for citizens as a way of being recognized as legitimate by other nation-states. Additionally, education systems exist within a bounded rationality of a generally accepted model to follow, consisting, for example, of a teacher, students, curriculum, and an organizational structure where students progress from one grade or level to the next. Globally shared values or norms, bounded rationality, and loose coupling are three characteristics of world culture. Lechner and Boli (2005) further explain that there is a worldwide culture embedded in organizations, technical structures, formalized rules, and constitutional documents in nations worldwide and that these norms and knowledge are shared across national boundaries by individuals, organizations, and corporations. Globally shared values or common scripts consist of a “systematic body of rules and principles, implemented by an ever-expanding set of institutions” that get adopted by individuals and organizations (Lechner & Boli, 2005, p. 12). These values or scripts may be widely diffused but become so ingrained in society that they become taken for granted and unquestioned, eventually developing into societal expectations. Wiseman et al. (2014) state that this adoption of common scripts or norms is legitimacy-seeking by nation-states to gain or maintain status at the international level.

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

67

However, “local variations and departures from standard models occur, in response to local circumstance and conditions” (Lechner & Boli, 2005, p. 15) which contribute to the creation of a bounded rationality. Discrepancies between policies made at the local and national levels are what is referred to as loose coupling. Thus, world culture provides a foundation of similarity in values and guiding ideas across nations – these might be thought of as blueprints or scripts that the world culture values and people, therefore, view as rational (Lechner & Boli, 2005). One example of global standards setting and scripting resulting from global testing and accountability is that India participated in PISA for the first time in 2009. Overall, the number of countries participating in the testing increased from 49 in 2003 to 57 in 2006 and 65 in 2009, as they gradually embraced a world culture of education. India is culturally, socially, and economically different from most of the countries participating in PISA. However, India competed in PISA 2009 to seek a legitimate standing at the global level. Next, given the shared norms, values, and ideals that make up this world culture, the expectation is that many similarities exist between the educational systems globally and locally. In this research we can see this in the global acceptance that to improve education quality, teacher quality is used as a measure. Across the globe, there are also similarities in the conceptions of high teacher quality, leading to a degree of homogenization although there is no standard way to define teacher quality. The classification of teacher variables such as teacher qualification, teacher certification, and professional development is recognized by research globally. For example, in India, there is focus on teacher qualification to improve teacher quality (NCERT, 2006), as is also the case in the United States where government regulations prevail at many levels for highly qualified teachers (Ingersoll, 2007). PISA assessments have thus resulted in countries competing with each other to gain a global standing in core subjects of mathematics, science, and reading. Meyer et al. (1997) explain how the cross-national studies as a result of PISA assessments result in countries adopting similar national development goals, projects, and commitments and viewing education as a solution to gain global recognition. The differences in economic forces, power, and culture take on “standardized forms and soon appear to be similar to a hundred other nation states around the world” (Meyer et al., 1997, p. 152). The research shows how India too, a developing country, is focusing on teacher quality as an important school resource to improve the quality of education. Influenced by international organizations, India has developed an official teacher evaluation tool named the Indian Performance Indicators (PINDICS), designed by NCERT at the policy level (GoI MHRD, 2016). The policymakers’ expectations are that implementation of PINDICS will improve the teacher quality and increase the education quality per international standards, although there are no official results on this so far. In terms of teacher education, Indian policymakers are adopting education policies, similar to those in western countries. For example, in the United States, there are more than

68 Indian Education and Teacher Quality 1,200 institutions that provide pre-service teacher education programs (Morey et al., 1997). In India, the national policies are now focusing on teacher education programs, and their curricula have been revised four different times between 1978 and 2009 to reflect changes adopted in the global environment (Pandey, 2011). Despite these similarities and shared conceptions surrounding teacher quality, loose coupling occurs in that policies made at the national level generally lose some of their intention by the time they are implemented at the local level. Loose coupling can occur due to poor implementation of policies or lack of resources or even lack of intent to implement international scripts at the local levels. This research determines the focus of Indian national policies on the teacher quality variables in the study, but examination of loose coupling is beyond the scope of the book. So, if the development of Indian education policies is driven by these powerful, global, legitimacy-seeking declarations, standards, testing regimes, and economic consortia, why do Indian education policies remain largely unfulfilled, and why do they seem to reproduce themselves every four to five years since 2005? The failure to fully implement Indian education policies in India is largely due to the phenomenon of loose coupling, or in the case of India, decoupling. Coupling explains the degree of alignment or connection between a policy, structure, or expectation and the implemented version of that policy, structure, or expectation. In the case of India, several policy recommendations from the four different 21st century national education policies have been focused specifically on improving teacher quality through training, professional development, resource support, and standards-setting, yet none of these policies have been universally implemented throughout India, nor have they been maintained beyond the initial implementation in those cases when they are. Three factors contribute to the decoupling of teacher quality-related policy and practice in India: infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability. Infrastructure is comprised of the resources, facilities, and either tangible or organizational structures that provide the materials necessary for a policy to be implemented. In its most basic form, infrastructure means financial resources necessary to implement a policy. For example, if the Indian national education policy calls for the establishment of new and improved teacher training institutions, then the required infrastructure would include facilities for the training institutions, resources to pay the salaries of the training instructors and purchase the necessary materials needed to conduct the training. It would also require a new form of organizational hierarchy and accountability structure to ensure that the new training institutions were managed responsibility and held accountable for maintaining the standards of teacher training necessary to improve the overall quality of new generations of teachers. Capacity is the second component in the coupling process. Capacity can reflect either the knowledge or skills necessary to implement the policy itself, or it can mean the knowledge and skills that are part of the content delivered as fulfillment of a policy. In the example outlined above the establishment of

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

69

new and improved teacher training institutions would require that the teacher trainers meet a minimum level of capacity competency in order to be qualified instructors, and the pre-service teachers being trained would need to meet a minimum level of competency in order to be designated as high quality teachers. Therefore, capacity-building is a key provision in educational policies because it determines the degree to which the requisite knowledge and skill (i.e., capacity) is available both for policy implementation and as a result of that implementation process as well. Finally, sustainability reflects the degree to which a policy is led (i.e., championed) by the key stakeholders and target beneficiaries of a particular policy and the degree to which these stakeholders and beneficiaries are empowered to define, direct, and sustain the implementation of the policy in question. In the example used above, sustainability for the implementation of new and improved teacher training institutions would include the involvement of preservice teachers, local educational administrators, and those involved in the training and development of both the training institutions and training the trainers. Their involvement would begin during the planning phase for the policy’s development through to the building of the training facilities and onto the actual delivery of training to pre-service teachers. In other words, sustainability for policy implementation means that target beneficiaries and key stakeholders are part of and actually lead the development of the policy through to its implementation. If they do not, then the policy becomes a top down mechanism, which even when implemented is rarely aligned with the needs, agendas, and interest of those the policy is meant to both benefit and serve. As Figure 3.3 suggests, the implementation of all 21st century Indian education documents, especially the teacher-quality-related policies, has decoupled from the intention of the policies themselves. In the chapters that follow, the decoupling of implementation from the NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, NEP 2016, NEP 2019, and NEP 2020 will be examined by identifying the presence or lack of attention to infrastructure development or provision, capacity-building and confirmation, and sustainable stakeholder involvement and leadership in each policy. As will be shown, in the case of each Indian national education document, the three components outlined above are all deficient and lead to a decoupling between the policy and its practice. Finally, the failed implementation of these national education documents, and their teacher quality reform elements in particular, complete the cycle of Indian education policy and its implementation because the average status and quality indicators of India’s education system do not significantly change. Therefore, the same concerns expressed during the legitimacy-seeking stage when the de facto education-economy link was so dominant among the public and policymakers alike is reproduced. As a result, a new cycle of Indian national education policymaking, with special attention to (the lack of) teacher quality begins and in four to five years’ time a new, but very similar, national education policy is developed and promoted in India. If this cycle continues, India may expect another new national education policy to be completed and publicized around 2025.

70 Indian Education and Teacher Quality It should be recognized that the failure of teacher quality reforms, in particular, and Indian national education policy, in general, to be implemented as outlined in the policies is not a complete failure. The legitimacyseeking purpose of the process is repeatedly addressed and completed, albeit imperfectly. Legitimacy-seeking simply means that activities have occurred which either align or give the impression of aligning the Indian educational system with the de facto education–economy link. By generating these national education policies on a fairly regular cycle in India, the symbolic attention to educational reform and teacher quality, specifically, signals to the national and international communities that India is a responsible “citizen” of those communities and is taking efforts to address educational quality in order to improve and maintain its economic status and legitimacy.

References Baker, D. P., & Wiseman, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Education for all: Global promises, national challenges (Vol. 8). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Batra, S. (2009). Strengthening human capital for knowledge economy needs: an Indian perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 345–358. Becker, G. S. (2009). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. Routledge. eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/1851/1/Ed_Policy_book_proofs.pdf. Bhattacharjee, D. (2015). Emergence of teacher training institutions (B.ED) in society. Indian Research Journal, 6(5). doi:10.9780/22307850. Call, K. (2018). Professional teaching standards: A comparative analysis of their history, implementation and efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 6. doi:10.14221/ajte.2018v43n3.6. Carnoy, M., Loyalka, P., Dobryakova, M., Dossani, R., Froumin, I., Kuhns, K., Tilak, J., & Wang, R. (2013). University expansion in a changing global economy: Triumph of the BRICs?Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Chaudhary, L., Musacchio, A., Nafziger, S., & Yan, S. (2012). Big BRICs, weak foundations: The beginning of public elementary education in Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Explorations in Economic History, 49(2), 221–240. Choudhury, M. (2017). A study on the policies of teacher education in post-independence period. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Studies, 3(5), 317–323. http://oaji.net/articles/2017/1115-1491480386.pdf. Damon, A., Glewwe, P., Wisniewski, S., & Sun. B. (2016). Education in developing countries: What policies and programmes affect learning and time in school? Review of Educational Research, 7, 295–387. doi:10.1002/rev3.3123. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. doi:10.14507/ epaa.v8n1.2000. Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). PISA and high-performing education systems: Explaining Singapore’s education success. Comparative Education, 52(4), 449–472. doi:10.1080/03050068.2016.1219535.

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

71

Dhawan, A. (2014, December 1). Building the nation’s human capital. Livemint. Retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/rq1ptTptmGdcUkZ0XimGIK/ Building-the-nations- human-capital.html Ghosh, S., & Mohan. R. (2015). Education in emerging society. PHI Learning. Government of India Ministry of Education. (1962). The Report of the University Education Commission. https://www.educationforallinindia.com/1949%20Report %20of%20the%20University%20Education%20Commission.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1968). National Policy on Education. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/ NPE-1968.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1986). National Policy on Education. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/ NPE-1986.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2016). Some Inputs for Draft NEP 2016. MHRD. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/ nep/inputs_Draft_NEP_2016.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2019). Draft National Education Policy 2019. MHRD. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/ Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf. Haddad, W. D., & Demsky, T. (1995). Education Policy-Planning process: An applied framework. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED420553. Hanushek, E. A. (2007). Education production functions. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (Vol. 2) (pp. 749–752). doi:10.1057/9780230226203.0448. Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). A comparative study on teacher preparation in six nations. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/145/. Kaku, D., & Saini, D. (2015). Chattopadhyaya committee report (1983–85): Recommendations and their relevance in today’s scenario of teacher education. Abhinav National Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Arts and Education, 4(5), 22–29. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aa/52/dcc90093801000a85a94560a 984ccf095eb6.pdf. Khatun, R., & Ahmed, N. (2018). Teacher education in India: A historical perspective. International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, 3(2), 594–597. http:// d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/612024…Q_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRB V4ZA. Kim, Y. C. (2016). PISA, Korean Students’ World-class Achievements and Dark Side of Korean Schooling. In Shadow education and the curriculum and culture of schooling in South Korea (pp. 1–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kobzev Kotásková, S., Procházka, P., Smutka, L., Maitah, M., Kuzmenko, E., Kopecká, M., & Hönig, V. (2018). The impact of education on economic growth: The case of India. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 66(1), 253–262. Kumar, K. (2004). Quality of education at the beginning of the 21st century: Lessons from India. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146663. Kumar, K. (2005). Quality of Education at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Lessons from India. Indian Educational Review, 40(1), 3–28. Kumar, P. (2019). Teachers matter: Traditional and non-traditional measures of teacher quality in India (Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University).

72 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Lechner, F., & Boli, J. (2005). Constructing world culture: Origins and consequences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Mangal, A. (2020). A century of teacher education in India: 1883–1995. Espacio, Tiempo y Education, 7(1). doi:10.14516/ete.231. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1) 144–181. doi:10.1086/231174. Mincer, J. (1981). Human capital and economic growth (No. w0803). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w0803. Mohan, R. (2019). Teacher education. PHI Learning. Morey, A. I., Bezuk, N., & Chiero, R. (1997). Preservice teacher preparation in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 4–24. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org. Muhr, T., & de Azevedo, M. (2018). The BRICS development and education cooperation agenda. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 18(3), 517–534. doi:10.22363/ 2313–0660–2018–2018–3-517–534. Nazar, R., Chaudhry, I. S., Ali, S., & Faheem, M. (2018). Role of quality education for sustainable development goals (SDGS). PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (2). doi:10.20319/pijss.2018.42.586501. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2006). Position paper on teacher education for curriculum renewal. New Delhi, India: Author. http://www. ncert.nic.in/new_ncert/ncert/rightside/links/pdf/focus_group/math.pdf. Odhekar, P. (2012). India. In C. L. Glenn & J. De Groof (Eds.), Balancing freedom, autonomy and accountability in education (Vol. 4), (pp. 91–108). Wolf Legal Publishers. Pandey. S. (2011). Professionalization of teacher education in India. A critique of teacher education curriculum reforms and its effectiveness. New Delhi, India: Indira Gandhi Open University. http://www.reserachgate.net/publication/281935136. Playdon, J. (2020). BRICS Education in the Global Race. BRICS Business Magazine, 1(25), Retrieved from https://www.bricsmagazine.com/en/articles/brics-educationin-the-global-race. Psacharopoulos, G. (1984). The contribution of education to economic growth: International comparisons (No. REP320, pp. 1–32). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Quiggin, J. (1999). Human capital theory and education policy in Australia. Australian Economic Review, 32(2), 130–144. doi:10.1111/1467-8462.00100. Rajput, J., & Walia, K. (2001). Reforms in teacher education in India. Journal of Educational Change, 2(3). doi:10.1023/A:101275360834. Ramachandran, V (2018). Contract teachers: A sustainable solution?https://www.acer. org/au/teacher-india/free-articles/contract-teachers-a-sustainable-solution. Sarkar, A., Rao, N., & Naik, P. (2008). Harnessing India’s human capital through educational opportunities. MIT International Review, 1–13. Retrieved from http:// web.mit.edu/mitir/2008/spring/harnessing.pdf. Schultz, T. (1961). Investments in human capital. The American Economic Review. 51(1), 1–17. doi:10.2307/1818907. Takayama, K., Waldow, F., & Sung, Y. K. (2013). Finland has it all? Examining the media accentuation of ‘Finnish education’in Australia, Germany and South Korea. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 307–325. Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework. (OECD Working Paper No. 162). doi:10.1787/fc467a64-en. Vishwanath, J., Reddy, K., & Pandit. K. (2009). Human capital contributions to economic growth in India: An aggregate production function analysis. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. 44(3), 474–486. doi:10.2307/27768219.

Linking Teacher Quality to Policy

73

Waheed, S. A., Gilani, N., Shoukat, L., & Saleem, K. (2015). Analysis of ‘the education policy’ employing Haddad’s conceptual framework. http://www.sci-int. com/pdf/2661887801%20a%206109-6114%20Syed%20Abdul%20Waheed–SIJ_000 60%2018pc.pdf. Wilgus, G. (2019). From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind to Race to the Top: The US response to global competition. In Investment in early childhood education in a globalized world (pp. 107–158). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Wiseman, A. W., Astiz, M. F., & Baker, D. P. (2014). Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: A review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Compare: A journal of comparative and international education, 44(5), 688–709. Wiseman, A. W., & Davidson, P. M. (2018). The rhythmic application of evidencebased policy in national educational systems worldwide. In Cross-nationally comparative, evidence-based educational policymaking and reform. Emerald Publishing Limited. Yermal, S. (2019). Teacher preparation and professional development in draft NEP (India) 2019. http://confluence.ias.ac.in/teacher-preparation-and-professional-developmentin-draft-nep-india-2019/.

4

Traditional and Non-Traditional Approaches to Teacher Quality

Teacher quality is a popular topic in the field of education, and research states that it is the most crucial resource in improving student outcomes and education quality in a country (Abe, 2014; Azam & Kingdon, 2014; DarlingHammond, 2000; Goldhaber & Anthony, 2003; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2003). Some researchers also affirm that classroom teachers add value to student learning and are more effective than other variables like class size and socioeconomic diversity (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Everybody wants to define, measure and reward teacher quality yet no one has operationalized the term “teacher quality”, and it may be difficult to do so (Berliner, 2005; Zuercher et al., 2014). The world is changing rapidly and to be successful, the educational reform in countries necessitates the need for teacher quality in the classroom. However, unless teacher quality is defined, it is going to be an impossible task to improve it. The ambiguity of the term has led to debates amongst researchers, policymakers, and educationists, and they all have their own ways in defining it. What constitutes teacher quality has been a topic of research for the past 50 years and yet there is no precise meaning of the term “teacher quality”. Although, what seems to have remained constant is that teacher quality is measurable through student performance. Earlier in the 1940s, studies found a correlation between teachers’ measurable intelligence and student performance (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rostker, 1945). And, therefore, teachers who had a high IQ were high quality teachers. However, in the 1970s and 1980s there were studies that showed very little correlation existed between teacher intelligence and student performance (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Soar et al., 1983). In the 1990s the term “teacher quality” was used interchangeably with “teacher effects” where a study using data from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System and a similar database in Dallas, Texas, showed that differential teacher effectiveness is a strong determinant of differences in student learning. Teacher effectiveness was defined as various teacher characteristics though they were not specified. Students who are assigned to several ineffective teachers in a row have significantly lower student scores as compared to those students who had highly effective teachers. Teacher effects appear to be additive and cumulative (Darling-Hammond, 2000).

Approaches to Teacher Quality

75

That the term teacher quality represents various teacher characteristics or variables suggests that the term “teacher quality” has many dimensions to it and the appropriate term should perhaps be “teacher qualities” (Kennedy, 2008). Teacher qualities are broadly divided into three categories: (1) personal resources that broadly includes positive student–teacher relationship that stems from the teachers’ belief that all students are capable of learning; (2) performance that encompasses the work or activities that teachers do with the students; and (3) effectiveness that shows how good teachers are at improving student scores on achievement tests and that includes fostering student learning, motivating students and fostering responsibility (Kennedy, 2008). Rice (2003) specifies five broad categories of measurable teacher characteristics or teacher attributes of teacher experience, teacher preparation programs and degrees, teacher certification, teacher coursework and teachers’ own test scores that define teacher quality. Evidence further suggests that to improve teacher quality, it is important to understand teacher qualities and study how they influence, complement, or contradict each other. Likewise, to improve teacher workforce quality, priority should be given to the plethora of teacher qualities, and educators, administrators, researchers, and policymakers may find more success in developing, “a coherent strategy for orchestrating… assessments into coherent systems that ultimately enhance the qualities we value most” (Kennedy, 2008, p. 62). In fact, student achievement outcomes are a measure of teacher quality that are widely used around the world. A well-known, American educational economist uses this very simple definition of teacher quality: “Good teachers are ones who get large gains in student achievement for their classes; bad teachers are just the opposite” (Hanushek, 2002, p. 2). A slight twist to this simple measure of teacher quality is the value-added measure (VAM) where teacher quality is measured by a teacher who is able to raise their students’ academic growth from one year to the next. This method of measuring teacher quality is used in the U.S., Europe, and recently in India and elsewhere (Azam & Kingdon, 2014). However, there have been criticisms in using the VAM method to evaluate teacher quality on the grounds of the method being very unstable as teachers' ratings differ from class to class and year to year as well as from test to test. Also, VAM are significantly affected by differences in students assigned to teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2015). Although the conditions surrounding teaching in India and the U.S. are vastly different, much of the teacher quality research and debates are grounded in U.S.-focused studies and legislation. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001 in the U.S. defined “highly qualified teachers” as those who earned bachelor's degrees, full state certification, and demonstrated competency as defined by the state in each core academic subject they taught (Grayson, 2009). This was a step taken by NCLB to prevent teachers teaching out of their areas of certification. Although teacher effectiveness is still gauged on the basis of student outcomes, NCLB has linked teacher quality with highly qualified and highly effective teachers (Zuercher et al., 2014).

76 Indian Education and Teacher Quality The argument is that a highly qualified and highly effective teacher has characteristics of intelligence, good communication and presentation skills, collaborates well with others, has strong subject matter knowledge, and uses variety of pedagogical skills. These teachers are also adept at classroom management. However, this definition was critiqued on the basis that mandating that teachers meet the minimum requirements to be considered highly qualified could be a first step toward ensuring teacher effectiveness, but just meeting those requirements is no guarantee that teachers will be effective (Goe, 2007; Gordon et al., 2006). The NCLB mandate did not encompass all the requirements of a quality teacher and continuous learning or professional development that kept the teacher abreast of new skills and knowledge was largely ignored. Simultaneously, there is also a growing amount of international research literature that states macro behaviours like teacher background characteristics, teacher attitude and beliefs and teaching processes influence student learning (Mcber, 2000; Schreerens, 2014). Within the broad framework of these macro-behaviours, researchers pinpoint certain micro-behaviours that are positively associated with student outcomes. These include quantity, quality, and pacing of instruction, classroom management, student–teacher relationships and pedagogical content knowledge (Creemers and Reezigt, 1996; Galton, 1987; Heck, 2007; Muijs & Reynolds, 2000; Okoye et al., 2008). The priority among the BRICS economies is to enhance teacher quality as a measure to improve educational quality. In Brazil, the National Law of Guidelines and standards of Education established in 1996 gave the deadline of 2007 for all basic education teachers to have their “tertiary education level habilitation” (Barbosa & Costa, 2019, p. 2). This implies change in teachers’ basic and pre-service education. However, despite the National Law of Guidelines and standards of education requirements, there was no effect on math scores even with a rise in the number of teachers with higher education in math. This shows that the quality of teacher training was poor, especially through distance learning, plus the academic performance of secondary students who enter teacher schools was significantly low (Barbosa & Costa, 2019). Brazil has since introduced policies aimed at supporting teachers through salary incentives like performance-related pay and improved teacher training curriculum. The federal government in India has also made it compulsory to have a formal teacher selection process and a structured career plan for teachers so that the profession is taken seriously. In the Indian context, although there is no definition of teacher quality, it is a well-accepted fact that teacher quality will improve student outcomes and education quality in the country. In 2013, the Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Dr. Shashi Tharoor, stated that to improve the quality of school teachers, the Government of India adopted a multi-pronged strategy, which included the strengthening of teacher education institutions, revising teacher curriculum for teacher education, to

Approaches to Teacher Quality

77

mandate specific qualifications required by teachers and finally to focus on professional development for teachers (Azam & Kingdon, 2014). Interestingly in China, although the key role of a teacher is recognized in improving student outcomes, the terms “education quality” and “teacher quality” are used interchangeably. Apart from other teacher characteristics like physical attributes, knowledge, skills, and cognitive ability, much emphasis is on moral conduct and professional, which are considered key teacher quality variables, especially when recruiting or promoting a teacher (Peng et al., 2014). Additionally, every teacher in China is expected to complete 240 hours of professional development over a period of five years. By contrast, the South African education standard is critically low as inequality inherited from the apartheid regime continues to lower the quality and access to education, especially among traditionally disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups, along with a short supply of teachers serving those communities. Understanding the critical role that teacher quality has on student learning and the quality of education, South Africa has looked at England and the European Union’s strategies of improving initial teacher training, autonomous learning and collaboration, and continuous professional development to enhance teacher quality (Buka & Molepo, 2016). Within the plethora of teacher qualities that seem to be still growing, one can see that there are a few teacher quality characteristics or variables that have been commonly used to measure teacher quality. These teacher quality variables of “teacher qualification”, “teacher certification” and “professional development”, which may be deemed “traditional” measures of teacher quality, are the most commonly used teacher quality measures both in research and in applied contexts (Goe & Stickler, 2008). The next sub-section reviews what past studies have to say about selected traditional measures or characteristics of teacher quality used as proxies for teacher quality with respect to student performance globally and in India.

Traditional Teacher Quality Measures Teacher Qualification A simple way to define a qualified teacher is a teacher who has the required academic degree to teach at a relevant level in a given country. Teacher qualification, characterized as a “traditional” teacher quality, is clearly measurable. There is no universal qualification requirement for teachers, however, and teacher qualifications vary from country to country or state to state based on each educational sector’s policies. Still, this traditional teacher quality variable is most commonly used as indicator of teacher quality because of “ease and cost-effectiveness of collecting data” (Goe & Stickler, 2008, p.3). Globally studies have shown that there is a positive relation between teacher qualification and student achievement or performance (Buddin & Zamarro, 2009; Holland, 2011).

78 Indian Education and Teacher Quality In BRICS economies starting with Brazil, a lack of teacher qualification is an ongoing education issue, especially with teachers teaching STEM subjects (Santos, 2018). The lack of qualified teachers persists in Brazil even though colleges for teacher accreditation amount to the second most common schools of higher education in the country. The National Education Guidelines and Framework Law of 1996 is the decisive regulatory framework for teacher education in the country, and it mandates that teachers of all educational levels must have a higher education degree to qualify as a teacher (Barretto, 2015). In Russia, teacher qualification and teacher certification are terms used synonymously and are the equivalent of achieving a bachelor’s and master’s degree (Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019). Likewise, in India, teacher qualification is identified with a graduate (B.Ed.) or a postgraduate (M.Ed.) degree in order to teach mathematics, for example (NCTE, 2009). In China, the Ministry of Education (MOE) licenses teacher education programs and teachers are qualified. A high school diploma is required as a qualification for teachers to teach pre-school and primary school. A junior college degree is required to teach middle school, and a bachelor’s degree is required to teach secondary school. Subject content knowledge is more of an emphasis in China’s teacher education as most teachers teach only one subject even in primary schools. After three years of teaching, teachers take a qualifying exam which is a prerequisite for teachers to continue with their teaching career (Zhu & Han, 2006). For South Africa, there are two options for initial teacher qualification: a four-year Bachelor of Education program or completion of an appropriate degree followed by a one-year advanced diploma in education and registration with the South African Council of Educators (SACE). In the United States, one needs to have a bachelor’s degree to enter the profession, and teachers who teach mathematics to middle or high school students need to be highly qualified in mathematics per the NCLB Act of 2001 (Akiba et al., 2007; Ingersoll, 2007). Regardless of which country is examined, however, the consistent finding is that to upgrade teacher quality, upgrading teacher qualification is necessary especially for teachers teaching mathematics (Mullis et al., 2016). There are several studies that have found an association between student achievement in mathematics and teacher qualification if the qualification is content-related. Although most of these studies reflect the U.S. experience, the argument in favor of teacher qualification in content matter is that the knowledge a qualified teacher gains through teacher education institutes and colleges gives both the content and confidence that helps teachers teach effectively (Monk, 1994). Similarly, cross-national studies on teacher quality, found that students whose teachers are certified in mathematics, have three or more years of experience teaching mathematics, and are also mathematics majors, positively impact student outcomes as compared to teachers qualified in subjects other than mathematics (Akiba et al., 2007; Mont, 2011; Nilsen & Gustafsson, 2016). In Brazil, a study on rural Brazilian students clearly found that teachers with subject-matter competency in mathematics

Approaches to Teacher Quality

79

positively influenced their students’ achievement (Goe & Stickler, 2008; Harbison & Hanushek, 1992). In Sub-Saharan Africa, evidence suggests that mathematics achievement is typically higher for students whose teachers have stronger academic and professional qualifications in the subject matter (Lee & Zuze, 2011). The study revealed that some schools in Sub-Saharan African countries like Botswana, where the quality of teachers in terms of qualification and experience is high, score better in mathematics than students in schools in Malawi where teacher qualification is low. In South Africa, a country still facing the consequences of the apartheid regime, evidence shows that learning outcomes for students were on the rise after schools were able to retain qualified mathematics teachers (Van der Berg & Louw, 2007). The cumulative research suggests that qualified teachers shift their roles from being simply evaluators to being facilitators and guides who allow students to think about and analyze their own work (Hill et al., 2005). Much of the studies suggest that rather specific content or subject matter qualification is far more effective than general teacher qualification. For example, in the U.S., teachers who are certified in mathematics and also have a bachelors or master’s degree in education were found to positively influence student outcomes (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997). Therefore, research suggests that both teacher qualification and subject content matter knowledge are important, particularly for mathematics (Clotfelter et al., 2007). However, teachers specializing in one subject area were unable to influence student outcomes in other subjects like history or English proving that subject training or competency was more important than the teacher’s qualifications to teach, especially in mathematics. These findings are consistent with the findings of Harris & Sass (2011), Monk (1994), Lim-Teo (2007), and Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) which state that content area majors are more effective in mathematics and science courses that require advanced skills to enhance student test scores than in other subjects. In respect to the level of teacher qualification, evidence suggests that there is no correlation between an advanced teacher degree and student outcomes (Hanushek et al., 2005) and other studies say that master’s degrees and beyond may even negatively impact students’ outcomes in mathematics (Monk, 1994; Rowan et al., 1997). Evidence in support of teacher qualification in India varies. Research has shown that, although minimal, a teacher with a master’s degree or above can raise student outcomes (Kingdon, 2006). Many Indian schools realize the significance of qualified teachers with respect to student learning and are trying to attract and retain qualified teachers through incentives (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011). Additionally, there are also studies that show diverse results between government and private schools with respect to teacher qualification and student achievement in mathematics. Evidence from the state of Andhra Pradesh showed that mathematics teachers in government schools have on average three years or more experience than mathematics teachers in private schools (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). Additionally, evidence further revealed that,

80 Indian Education and Teacher Quality for mathematics teachers, there is a far larger percentage of teachers in government schools that hold a diploma, bachelor’s, or master’s degree as compared to private schools. However, the number of bachelor’s and master’s degrees held by teachers in areas other than teaching is higher in private schools. Evidence has shown that students’ mathematics scores are higher in private schools than in government schools. The question then arises as to why learning outcomes are higher in private schools when there are better qualified and more experienced teachers in government schools. The evidence seems to suggest, contrary to the traditional teacher quality expectations surrounding teacher qualifications that having a general B.Ed. or M.Ed. alone is not sufficient to impact student performance. There are also studies that show there is no correlation between teacher qualification and student outcomes. Evidence from the U.S. has suggested that only 3% of what the teachers contributed to the student’s learning process could be related to the degree obtained by the teacher (Bonney et al., 2015; Goldhaber, 2016). Other findings suggest that teachers with qualification and experience did have a positive effect on student achievement; however, the impact did not remain consistent across the school year (Goldhaber, 2002). There are several studies that show a weak and inconsistent correlation between a teacher’s professional knowledge gained through teacher qualification and student achievement in mathematics, which suggests that there are other variables that have a greater impact on students’ outcomes (Aaronson et al., 2007; Blomeke et al., 2016; Hanushek & Luque, 2003; Harris & Sass, 2011; Luschei & Chudgar, 2011). Teacher Certification Teacher certification is traditionally defined as a teaching certification issued an authorized institution in a state or country. The topic of teacher certification’s impact on student achievement is quite limited both in India and outside the country. The few studies available are from the U.S., and both argue that teacher certification is associated with student gains (DarlingHammond, 2000; Goldhaber & Anthony, 2003; Moss 2012). In particular, Darling-Hammond (2000) conducted a state level analysis using data from the United States to examine the relationship between certification status and student achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This study revealed that certification status is an important determinant of student outcomes. Acknowledging that teacher certification is associated with student gains in U.S.-based research, Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) conducted a study to examine which type of certification (standard, private school, emergency certification, not certified in subject area) impacts student performance in mathematics. The study revealed, “evidence in math that teachers with subject-specific training (a mathematics degree or certification) outperform those without subject-matter preparation” (p. 141).

Approaches to Teacher Quality

81

In contrast, research conducted outside of the U.S. suggest that there is no association between teacher certification and student achievement in mathematics (Ballou & Podgursky, 2000). In fact, evidence from studies outside of the U.S. suggest that teacher certification requirements and processes prevent bright and capable people from entering the teaching profession. In spite of this evidence, many developing countries are giving priority to teacher certification and spending substantial resources in certifying teachers (Pugath, 2017). However, evidence in Gambia, Chile, and Indonesia shows little or no association between teacher certification and student outcomes (Pugath, 2017). In India, the NCTE determines the qualifications required by teachers, while the certification, which is a relatively new concept in India that started in 2014, is handled by the Centre for Teacher Accreditation (CENTA). From the limited information available, existing teachers are certified by CENTA based on their years of experience. However, certified teachers without teacher qualifications can only teach in private, unaided, or pre-primary schools in India (Centre for Teacher Accreditation [CENTA], n.d.). There are no evidencebased studies available showing that teacher certification impacts student outcomes in India. Professional Development Professional training considered for the study includes teacher in-service training and participation in different activities enhancing teacher knowledge and skills. In India, the NCTE, a statutory body of the Central Government, is responsible for pre-service teacher training through a planned and coordinated development of teacher education in the country. The in-service training is provided by various teacher training institutions (TTIs), unaided schools, and other establishments (GoI MHRD, 2017). Teacher professional development is a major focus of a systematic teacher reform initiatives (Garet et al., 2001, p. 916). Mizell (2010) in his book argues that just like professional development is important for lawyers, doctors and is mandatory for them, it is equally important for the teaching profession as it helps expand knowledge and skills to implement the best educational practices. Another study in the United States conducted on the effect of a three-year long professional development program on mathematics showed professional development impacts teachers’ content knowledge and teaching practices, thus significantly impacting student achievement (Polly et al., 2015). Overall, evidence from the U.S. suggests that professional development for teachers is most effective in improving student performance when it is “ongoing, sustained and intense” rather than short term (Garet et al., 2001., p. 916). Likewise, professional development is more likely to influence student outcomes when it is hands-on, embedded within the curriculum, and active with school goals. Therefore, the duration and application of professional development may have an important impact on student outcomes. Yet, the characteristics of professional development are often secondary to the implementation of any

82 Indian Education and Teacher Quality type of professional development at all. For example, U.S. students whose teachers receive professional development perform better than students whose teachers do not receive any professional development, especially in mathematics, where there was a difference of one full grade (Wenglinsky, 2002). However, the case for professional development and its impact on teacher quality or student performance is not consistent, especially outside of the U.S. For example, a study in eight Latin American countries showed that on average there is no impact of teacher professional development on student learning, and formal education or pre-service training is more effective than inservice training (Velez et al., 1993). Even some evidence from the U.S. suggests that there is no impact on student performance due to any kind of specialized training in mathematics by the teachers (Hanushek & Luque, 2003). Other voices outside of the U.S. have also noted that countries such as the United States provide incoherent and inconsistent professional development opportunities for their teachers, which makes the results of professional development on teacher quality in the U.S. difficulty to interpret and potentially inaccurate in spite of the global traditional argument that “regular professional development is essential for effective teaching and learning” (Stewart 2011, p. 19). In India, the evidence on the impact of professional development on teacher quality and, as a result, student performance is mixed. For example, private school data show no association between teacher in-service training and student achievement, and suggests that there is an unnecessary emphasis on teacher in-service training by policymakers in the country (Azam & Kingdon, 2014). But, other evidence using data from rural India showed that students benefit from professional teacher training in their classroom knowledge and skills, though not all professional development was conducted per the norms of the NCTE with respect to content and implementation of practices (Kidwai et al., 2013). Summary of Literature on Traditional Teacher Quality Measures Globally, no doubt there are studies that have shown a teacher who is qualified can positively influence student outcomes but the effect of this is limited. Teacher qualification is important for an entry-level teacher where their performance and outcome data are not yet available (Goe & Stickler, 2008). With respect to teacher qualification in India, evidence from the literature shows that it has a positive impact on student outcomes, if the teacher has a degree in the subject area they are teaching. Having a bachelor’s or a master’s degree in a subject other than the one they are teaching does not impact student outcomes. This holds true even in other countries outside of India. With respect to teacher certification, there were no studies available in India, but internationally the evidence is mixed. While some studies show that teacher certification has an impact on student outcomes, others show no association between the two. In the United States, it is evident that certification matters

Approaches to Teacher Quality

83

provided it is subject-specific and not a general certification. With respect to professional development, conflicting results show that research does not support the view that teacher training will increase teacher quality or student outcomes, but it also does not state that training is unimportant. In short, teacher professional development alone may not prove beneficial to student outcomes.

Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Measures There are, still, many non-traditional measures of teacher quality, which include teacher salary and performance pay, teacher absenteeism, teacher alignment between subject area training and teaching, teacher attitude, and student achievement in mathematics. Teacher Salary and Monetary Incentives As a non-traditional teacher quality indicator, teacher salary and monetary incentives include monthly pay and increments, performance pay based on assessment data and any monetary incentives to teachers. In India, the salary of teachers employed by private schools is “negotiable” at the entry level (Jain & Kabra, 2015), and private schools in India may opt for the salary bands suggested by the Pay Commission. The salary or incentives for teachers employed in government schools is determined on the recommendations of the Pay Commission with an annual increase of 2.5%. The basic salary in government schools is based on a combination of qualification and years of experience. There are limited studies on the association of teacher salary (including also performance pay or any monetary incentives) and student achievement. In the United States, however, the evidence on the effects of teacher salary and monetary incentives on student achievement are mixed. In some cases, students’ test scores are higher in schools where teachers are given individual financial incentives; however, there is limited evidence of any positive correlation between teacher merit-pay and student outcomes in mathematics (Figlio & Kenny, 2007). Other evidence out of the U.S. suggests that there is no association between monetary incentives, teacher motivation and student outcomes (Fryer, 2008; Yuan et al., 2012). For India, evidence suggests that pay structure is an important tool in the hands of policymakers, but although the merit-pay incentive works well in private schools, it fails to impact student results in government schools (Kingdon & Teal, 2007). Still, evidence suggests that overall higher salaries tend to motivate Indian teachers to work harder in government schools. Other evidence from India has examined the relationship between monetary incentives in the form of performance pay to teachers to improve student learning (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011). For example, when teachers in Andhra Pradesh were given bonus payments based on student

84 Indian Education and Teacher Quality achievement, evidence showed “students scored significantly higher on conceptual and mechanical components of the assessments revealing that student learning improved in math versus students in schools with other school-based inputs of a similar value to the teacher performance pay” (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011, p. 1). In some circumstances in India, therefore, data does suggest that monetary incentives may be a motivator not only to retain teachers but to improve their quality and student performance. Additionally, Indian policymakers may find that incentives encourage teachers to be more committed, especially in a country like India where the pay scales are low in comparison to international standards. The problem is that performance pay incentives may lose their impact over time. Evidence from India also suggests that although individual teacher incentive programs may enhance student outcomes not only in mathematics but also in other subjects over time, group teacher incentives that worked initially gradually cease to impact student outcomes (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011). Still, this evidence suggests that teacher incentives are three times more effective in raising Indian student test scores than other school-related inputs. Although the studies conducted are few in India, evidence shows a positive association between performance pay and student outcomes, other factors remaining constant. In other developing countries like Israel (Lavy, 2002), performance pay and high salaries are associated with student performance. Similarly, a study conducted in Kenya revealed that increases in salary and monetary benefits show a positive impact on student outcomes as teachers are motivated, and therefore, they perform more effectively (Akello, 2015). Teacher Absenteeism This non-traditional variable is defined as the number of days teachers are absent from their class. Studies have shown absenteeism lowers student performance and is also an economic concern for schools. In respect to student performance, evidence shows that the more days a teacher is absent or out of the classroom, the more negatively it affects student performance (Bidwell, 2014; Finlayson, 2009; Miller, 2012; Porres, 2016). Evidence from the U.S. shows that teachers’ absenteeism affects students’ outcomes perhaps due to the fact that effective instruction requires daily teacher supervision, input, and practice (Finlayson, 2009). Other evidence from the U.S. shows that, “every 10 absences lowers average mathematics achievement equivalent to the difference between having a novice teacher and one with a bit more experience” (Joseph et al., 2014, p. 2), although teachers remained absent less if they had to notify the management or principal of the school by telephone (Miller et al., 2008, p. 5). It has also been suggested that teacher absenteeism and the negative impact on student scores in the U.S. may be reduced if teachers are paid for unused sick leave (Boyer, 1994). Ironically, “absent” teachers may be on the school premises but absent from the classroom as they are

Approaches to Teacher Quality

85

attending professional development workshops during school hours. This also negatively impacts student learning (Miller, 2012). Teachers from low socio-economic areas tend to be absent more often than those at other schools especially in developing countries (Davies, 2018; Finlayson, 2009; Kremer et al., 2005; Narayan & Mooij, 2010; Nedungadi et al., 2018 due to lack of motivation resulting from low pay structure, poor school infrastructure, lack of adequate training. Overall, the evidence on teacher absenteeism takes a clear and logical stand that when teachers are absent or out of the classroom, a student’s outcome is negatively impacted. In India, teacher absenteeism is high, thus affecting students’ performance. In a study conducted in six countries across three continents, India had the highest absence rate compared to Bangladesh, Uganda, Peru, Indonesia, and Ecuador (Kremer et al., 2005). Conducting their study in government schools in rural areas of the states of Maharashtra (Western India) and Jharkhand (Northern India), researchers found that 25% of teachers were absent during unannounced visits to the schools. Teachers’ Subject-Matter Knowledge In the United States, studies show that a teacher’s subject knowledge, especially in mathematics, positively impacts student achievement (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997, 2000; Hill et al., 2005; Monk, 1994; Rowan et al., 1997; Wenglinsky, 2002). Studies reveal that students whose teachers have a master’s or bachelor’s degree in mathematics have the highest test scores as compared to students whose teachers have a master’s or bachelor’s degree in other subjects but teach mathematics (Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000). Kennedy (1997) argued that mathematics is a subject in which teachers themselves need to have a deep understanding of the concepts and procedures so as to encourage students to explore the subject without any fear. However, teachers’ subject-matter competency positively influences student outcomes to “a level of basic competency in the subject but is less important thereafter” (Darling-Hammond 2000, p 3). Supporting this claim, a study by Monk in 1994 using data on 2,829 students showed a positive relationship between teachers’ subject-matter knowledge in mathematics but the relationship showed diminishing returns above a level. Although studies consistently support the fact that subject-matter knowledge in mathematics is important to increase student outcomes, subject-matter knowledge is measured differently. In the United States, subject-matter knowledge of mathematics, for example, is measured by whether a teacher has a master’s or a bachelor’s degree in mathematics (Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Rowan et al., 1997). Subject-matter knowledge has also been measured by whether teachers could answer a mathematics quiz in a teacher survey (Rowan et al., 1997). Studies convey that the association is logical because to teach a subject like mathematics, expertise in it is essential (Mullens et al., 1996).

86 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Studies in developing countries also show a positive relationship between a teacher’s subject knowledge and student outcomes. Results in a study in Peru by Metzler and Woessmann, (2012) reveals that teacher subject-knowledge is important and should be on the agenda of educational administrators and policy makers. Similarly, a study conducted in five African countries (South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Namibia) using the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) II data revealed that teacher subject knowledge plays a big role in impacting student outcomes. However, it was not clear from the study how subject knowledge was measured (Spreen & Fancsali, 2005). Similar results were found in a study conducted in Thailand on eighth-grade mathematics students in a few Thai schools using multi-level modelling (Lockheed & Longford, 1989). The study affirmed that subject knowledge of the teacher is critical to student learning and that a mathematics teacher has to be qualified in mathematics. However, the study did not define the term “qualified in mathematics”. Teacher Attitude Teacher attitude for this study includes student and teacher rapport and classroom environment. Teacher attitude is increasingly important, especially in light of the recurring problem of how to improve enthusiasm and student mathematics scores for the subject. Realizing the importance of teacher attitude on student outcomes, it is not surprising that there are many studies focusing on this teacher quality measure. Studies from the United States reveal that in the absence of a teacher’s positive demeanor and encouragement, students face difficulties in mathematics, thus leading to poor performance (Lattimore, 2005). Therefore, most studies in the United States conclude that a positive attitude displayed by a teacher can help reduce mathematics phobia or anxiety in students, resulting in improved test scores (Ashcraft, 2002; Lattimore, 2005; Opdenakker & Damme, 2007). With respect to mathematics, studies show that teachers who project a feeling of trust in their students’ ability to do mathematics communicate confidence in the pupils’ future performance, leading to positive growth in mathematics learning (Lee & Loeb, 2000). During mathematics instruction, a positive reaction by a teacher rather than a neutral response facilitates student learning because it encourages students to participate in class discussions (Centra & Potter, 1980). Also, a teacher’s attitude about teaching mathematics to her or his children comes across clearly in the teaching methods. A teacher who has a positive attitude towards her or his students and mathematics will facilitate knowledge building in mathematics through an exploratory process, thus enabling students to grasp the conceptual knowledge of the subject and achieve high test scores (Lattimore, 2005; Russo et al., 2020).

Approaches to Teacher Quality

87

In respect to student–teacher relationships, studies from the United States reveal that a positive teacher’s attitude also helps develop a strong rapport between a teacher and student, impacting student outcomes in mathematics (Downey, 2008; Gallagher et al., 2013; Gablinske, 2014). Gallagher et al. (2013) further added that apart from academic gains from a positive teacher– student relationship, there are social gains too: students feel motivated to work and also communicate better with their teachers, thus reducing the number of high school dropouts. In India, most studies on teacher attitude focus on college-level students. However, evidence, though limited, shows that teachers in schools in Rajasthan (Northern India) and Orissa (Eastern India) who have a positive attitude towards the learning of their students and show a positive attitude towards additional training have improved student performance (Wu et al., 2009). Summary of Literature on Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Measures In India, evidence from an extensive five-year study showed that teacher performance pay is a motivator for teachers. The salary structure for teachers in India is comparatively low and, therefore, performance pay acts as an incentive for teachers to increase the quality and time spent on teaching students to improve their performance. However, in the United States, the results are mixed. While a few studies show the positive relationship between teacher merit or performance pay and student outcomes, there are other studies that show that there is no association between the two. Globally, teacher absenteeism has been shown to negatively impact student performance as there is discontinuation of instruction, practice, and classroom routine (Miller et al., 2008; Porres, 2016). In respect to subject-matter knowledge, evidence from studies globally shows that there is a positive relationship between teachers’ subject-matter knowledge in mathematics and students’ performance in the subject. The logic is that if a teacher has a thorough knowledge of mathematics, she/he will be in a better position to explain the content well. However, the main drawback in studies relating to subject-matter competency is that teachers’ competency in mathematics knowledge is not measured consistently across countries. Teacher attitude is an important factor impacting student’s performance. A teacher with a positive attitude has a “student-centered” approach to her or his teaching, instilling confidence in students to approach a complex subject like mathematics for which many possess phobia or anxiety. In comparison, research has shown that a teacher with a negative attitude and “teachercentred” instruction adversely impacts student performance (Blazar & Kraft, 2017; Manswell Butty, 2001; Ulug et al., 2011). Thus, past research shows that although teacher quality is yet to defined, studies have acknowledged the relationship between various teacher characteristics that are termed as “traditional” and “non-traditional”. In a way, the lack of data in support of any particular teacher quality variable is the reason for

88 Indian Education and Teacher Quality lack of a precise definition for the term. Studies show the importance of teacher qualification to improve teacher quality, but subject-matter knowledge or a degree in mathematics is an added requirement. Similarly, teacher certification by itself has no impact on student outcomes in mathematics unless the certification is in mathematics. It is critical for policymakers to understand the relationship between the various teacher quality variables and also to acknowledge that there are many indicators of teacher quality apart from the traditional teacher quality variables commonly used.

References Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teacher and student achievement in Chicago public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1). doi:10.1086/ 508733. Abe, T. (2014). The effects of teachers’ qualifications on students’ performance in mathematics. Sky Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 1–14. http://skyjournals. org/sjer/pdf/2014pdf/Feb/Abe%20pdf.pdf. Akello, A. J. (2015). Impact of teacher characteristics on student academic achievement in Kisumu Central sub-county, Kenya. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 2(8), 47–56. http://jeper.org/index.php/JEPER/article/ view/145. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387. doi:10.3102/001318x07308739. Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181–195. doi:10.1111/1467– 8721.00196. Azam, M., & Kingdon, G. (2014, October). Assessing teacher quality in India (Working Paper No. 8622). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2512933. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College Record Volume, 102(1). doi:10.1111/0161– 4681.00046. Barbosa, M.P., & Costa, L.O. (2019). Requirements to be a teacher in Brazil: Effective or not? (Working Paper. 9006). Retrieved from World Bank website: http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/599651568226593260/Requirements-to-Be-a-Teacherin-Brazil-Effective-or-Not. Barretto, E. (2015). Teacher education in Brazil: Contemporary changes. Revista Brasileira Education, 20(62), 679–701. doi:10.1590/S1413-24782015206207. Berliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205–213. Bidwell, A. (2014, June 3). Report: Teacher absenteeism can hurt student achievement. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/03/report-teacherabsenteeism-can-hurt-student-achievement. Blazar, D. & Kraft, M. (2017). Teacher and teacher effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Education Evaluation Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170. doi:10.3102/ 0162373716670260. Bonney, E.A., Amoah, D., Micah, S., Ahiamenyo, C., & Lemaire, M. (2015). The relationship between quality of teachers and pupils’ academic performance in the

Approaches to Teacher Quality

89

STMA junior high schools of the western region of Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(24), 139–150. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1078818.pdf. Boyer, C. E. (1994). The relationship between buy-back provision and teacher attendance rates (Report No. EA 026 862). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384972.pdf. Blomeke, S., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., Konig, J., & Suhl, U. (2016). The relation between content-specific and general teacher knowledge and skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.02.003. Buddin, R, & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualification and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(2), doi:10.1016/ j.jue.2009.05.001. Buka, A. M., & Molepo, J.M. (2016). A psycho-pedagogic approach for inclusive classes in disadvantaged rural primary schools in South Africa: Advancing teaching practices. http://krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJES/IJES-12-0-000-16-Web/IJES-12-1-00016-Abst-PDF/IJES-12-1-038-16-735-Buka-A-M/IJES-12-1-038-16-735-Buka-A-MTx[5].pdf. Centre for Teacher Accreditation. (n.d.). Teacher certification. Retrieved from https:// www.centa.org/. Centra, J. A., & Potter, A. D. (1980). School and teacher effects: An international model. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 273–291. doi:10.3102/00346543050002273. Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross subject analysis with student fixed effects. (Working Paper No. 13617). doi:10.3386/w13617. Creemers, B.P., & Reezigt, G.J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3). doi:10.1080/ 0924345960070301. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. doi:10.14507/ epaa.v8n1.2000. Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation? Educational Research, 44(2). doi:10.3102/0013189X15575346. Davies, E. (2018, September 7). Absence: Electoral cycles and teacher absenteeism in India [Paper Presented]. University of Oxford. http://barrett.dyson.cornell.edu/ NEUDC/paper_90.pdf. Downey, J. A. (2008). Recommendations for fostering educational resilience in the classroom. Prevent School Failure, 53(1), 56–64. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ814415. Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6). doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.10.001. Finlayson, M. (2009). The impact of teacher absenteeism on student performance: The case of Cobb County School District. Kennesaw State University Dissertations, Theses and Capstone Projects. Paper 4. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/etd/4. Fryer, R. G. (2008). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City Public Schools. (Working Paper No. 16850). Retrieved from NBER website: doi:10.3386/w16850. Gablinske, P.B. (2014). A case study of teacher-student relationships and the effect on student learning. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island]. Digital Commons@URI. Gallagher, K. C., Kainz, K., Feagans, L. V., & White, K. M. (2013). Development of student–teacher relationships in rural early elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(3), 520–528. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.03.00.

90 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Galton, M. (1987). An oracle chronicle: A decade of classroom research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4). doi:10.1016/0742-051X(87)90022-9. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L.Birman, F. B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi:10.3102/ 00028312038004915. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. (ED 521219). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521219.pdf. Goe, L., & Stickler, L. M. (2008). Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. (ED 520769). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED520769.pdf. Goldhaber, D. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most: Today's research reinforces Coleman's findings. Education Next, 16(2), 56–63. Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2003). Teacher quality and diversity series. (ED 477271). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477271.pdf. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Why don’t schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 32(3), 505–523. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2). doi:10.3102/016237370220002129. Goldhaber, D. D.( 2002). The mystery of good teaching. Education Next, 2(1), 50–55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285853578_The_mystery_of_good_ teaching. Gordon, R., Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. http://www.brrkings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ 2000604hamilton_1pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2017). Quality. http://mhrd.gov.in/quality. Grayson, K. (2009). Defining teacher quality beyond the certificate. IDRA Newsletter. https://www.idra.org/resource-center/defining-teaching-quality-beyond-thecertificate/. Hanushek, E. (2002). Publicly provided education. http://hanushek.stanford.edu/ sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%202002%20HbPubE%204.pdf. Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Ecometrica, 73(2). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4899267_ Teachers_Schools_and_Academic_Achievement. Hanushek, E. A. (2007). Education production functions. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (Vol. 2) (pp. 749–752). doi:10.1057/9780230226203.0448. Hanushek, E. A., & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and equity among schools around the world. Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 481–502. doi:10.1016/S02727757(03)00038-4. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). How to improve the supply of high-quality teachers. Brookings Paper on Education Quality, 7–25. doi:10.1353/pep.2004.0001. Harbison, R. W., & Hanushek, E. A. (1992). Educational performance for the poor: Lessons from rural northeast Brazil. Oxford University Press. Harris, D., & Sass, T. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement. Journal of Public Economic, 95(7–8), doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009.

Approaches to Teacher Quality

91

Heck, R. (2007). Examining the Relationship Between Teacher Quality as an Organizational Property of Schools and Students’ Achievement and Growth Rates. Educational Administration Quaterly,43(4). doi:10.1177/0013161X07306452. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406. doi:10.3102/00028312042002371. Holland, T. (2011). How does teacher qualification impact student achievement in relation to the achievement model established by the Mississippi department of education?https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1468&context= dissertations. Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). A comparative study on teacher preparation in six nations. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. doi:10.12698/cpre.2007.6nationsrr. Jain, R., & Kabra, M. (2015). Teacher incentives: Evidence from schools in Delhi. Retrieved from Center for Civil Society website: New Delhi, India: Center for Civil Society. Retrieved http://ccs.in/sites/default/files/reserach/reserch-teacher-incentives. pdfhttp://ccs.in/sites/default/files/research-teacher-incentives.pdf. Joseph, N., Waymack, N., Zielaski, D. (2014). Roll call: The importance of teacher attendance. https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/RollCall_TeacherAttendance. Kennedy, M. (1997). Defining an ideal teacher education program. http://citeseerx. ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?. doi:10.1.1.483.8401&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Kennedy, M. (2008). Sorting out teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1). doi:10. org/10.1177/00317270809000115. Kidwai, H., Burnette, D., Rao, S., Nath, S., Bajaj, M., & Bajpai, N. (2013). Inservice teacher training for public primary schools in rural India: Findings from district Morigaon (Assam) and district Medak (Andhra Pradesh). (Working Paper No. 12). Retrieved from Columbia Global Center website: doi:10.7016/ D8HT2PRV. Kingdon, G. (2006). Teacher characteristics and student performance in India (Working Paper No. GPRG-WPS-059). Oxford, UK: ESRC Global Poverty Research Group. http://www.gprg.org/pubs/workingpapers/pdfs/gprg-wps-059.pdf. Kingdon, G. G., & Teal, F. (2007). Does performance related pay for teachers improve student performance? Some evidence from India. Economics of Education Review, 26(4), 473–486. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.02.007. Kremer, M., Chaudhry, N., Rogers, F., Muralidhran, K., & Hammer, J. (2005). Teacher absence in India: A snapshot. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2), 658–667. doi:10.1162/jeea.2005.3.2-3.658. Lattimore, R. (2005). African American students’ perceptions of their preparation for a high-stakes mathematics test. Negro Educational Review, 56(2), 135–146. (ED 768460). ERIC. doi:768460.pdf. Lavy, V. (2002). Evaluating the effect of teachers’ performance incentives on pupil achievement (Working Paper Nos. 1–5). Retrieved from Hebrew University of Jerusalem website: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=288814. Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers’ attitudes and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3–31. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461. 635&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Lee, V. E., & Zuze, T. L. (2011). School resources and academic performance in subSaharan Africa. Comparative Education Review, 55(3), 369–397. doi:10.1086/ 660157.

92 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Lim-Teo, S.K. (2007). The development of diploma in education student teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5. doi:10.1007/ s10763-006-9056-5. Lockheed, M. E., & Longford, N. T. (1989). A multi-level model of school effectiveness in a developing country (Working Paper No. 242). Retrieved from World Bank website: https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wbkwbrwps/242.htm. Lockheed, M., Prokic-Bruer, T., & A. Shadrova. (2015). The Experience of MiddleIncome Countries Participating in PISA 2000–2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. Luschei, T., & Chudgar, A. (2011). Teachers, student achievement and national income: A cross-national examination of relationships and interactions. Prospects, 41(4). doi:10.1007/s1112511-9213-7. Manswell Butty, J. (2001). Teacher instruction, student attitudes, and mathematics performance among 10th and 12th grade Black and Hispanic students. The Journal of Negro Education, 70(1/2), 19–37. doi:10.2307/2696281. Mcber, H. (2000). A model of teacher effectiveness. Digital Education Resource Archive. Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student achievement: Evidence from within- teacher within student-variation. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2),486–496. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.06.002. Miller, R. (2012). Teacher absence as a leading indicator of student achievement: New national data offer opportunity to examine cost of teacher absence relative to learning loss. (ED 536902). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536902.pdf. Miller, R., Murmane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2008). Do teacher absences impact student achievement? Longitudinal evidence from one urban school district. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 181–200. doi:10.2307/30128059. Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. The Learning Forward. https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/professional-developm ent-matters.pdf. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 124–145. doi:10.1016/ 0272-7757(94)90003–90005. Mont, G. (2011). Cross-national differences in educational achievement inequality. Sociology of Education,84(1). doi:10.1177/0038040710392717. Moss, P.L. (2012). Teacher certification and student achievement. [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi]. The Aquila Digital Community. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness in mathematics: Some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the mathematics enhancement programme (primary). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3). doi:10.1076/0924–3453(200009)11:3;1-g;ft27. Mullens, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (1996). The Contribution of Training and Subject Matter Knowledge to Teaching Effectiveness: A Multilevel Analysis of Longitudinal Evidence from Belize. Comparative Education Review,40(2). doi:10.1086/ 447369. Mullis, I., Martin, M., & Loveless, T. (2016). 20 years of TIMSS. http://timssandpirls. bc/timss2015/international…nt/uploads/2016/T15-20 years-of-TIMSS.pdf. Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2011). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39–77. doi:10.1086/659655. Narayan, K., & Mooij. J. (2010). Solutions top teacher absenteeism in rural government primary schools in India: A comparison of management approaches. The Open

Approaches to Teacher Quality

93

Education Journal, 3, 63–71. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a22a/6c3dbe09c3 f6e53ebc0b5e7cce18720ede3b.pdf. NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education). (2009). National curriculum framework for teacher education. NCTE. http://www.ncte-india.org/ncte_new/pdf/ NCFTE_2010.pdf. Nedungadi, P., Mulki, K., & Raman, R. (2018). Improving educational outcomes and reducing absenteeism at remote villages with mobile technology and WhatsAPP: Findings from rural India. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 113–127. doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9588-z. Nilsen, T., & Gustafsson, J.E. (2016). Teacher quality, instructional quality and student outcomes. IEA Research for Education, 2, 21–50. doi:1.10.1007/978-3-31941252-8. Okoye, N., Solomon, M., Daniel A., & Ebele, O. (2008). Teachers’ quality, Instructional strategies, and students performance in secondary school science. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ813325. Opdenakker, M. C., & Damme, J. (2007). Do school context, student composition and school leadership affect school practice and outcomes in secondary education? British Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 179–206. doi:10.1080/01411920701208233. Peng, W., McNess, E., Thomas, S., Rong Wu, Z., Zhang, C., Zhong Li, J., & Sheng Tiang, H. (2014). Emerging perceptions of teacher quality and teacher development in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 34(1). Polly, D., McGee, J., Wang, C., Martin, C., Lambert, R., & Pugalee, D. (2015). Linking professional development, teacher outcomes, and student achievement: The case of a learner-centered mathematics program for elementary school teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 26–37. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.002. Porres, A. (2016). The impact of teacher absenteeism on student achievement: A study on U.S. public schools using results of the 2011–2012 Civil Rights Data Collection. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Retrieved from https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/ 1040835/Porres_georgetown_0076M_13267.pdf?sequence=1. Pugath, T. (2017). Is teacher certification an effective tool for developing countries? IZA World of Labor. http://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/349/pdfs/…effectivetool-for-developing-countries.pdf. Quiggin, J. (1999). Human capital theory and education policy in Australia. Australian Economic Review, 32(2). doi:10.1111/1467-8462.00100. Rice, K. J. (2003). Executive summary. https://www.epi.org/publication/books_ teacher_quality_execsum_intro/. Rostker, L. (1945). The measurement of teaching ability study number one. The Journal of Experimental Education, 14(1), 6–51. doi:10.1080/00220973.1945.1101033. Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 256–284. doi:10.2307/2673267. Russo, J., Bobis, J., Sullivan, P., Downton, A., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Hughes, S. (2020). Exploring the relationship between teacher enjoyment of mathematics, their attitudes towards student struggle and instructional time amongst early years primary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.102983. Sanders, W, & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl/files/cum ulative%20and%20residual%20effects%20of%20teachers.pdf.

94 Indian Education and Teacher Quality Santos, J.C. (2018). The influence of teacher (Des) qualification in teaching chemistry in Brazil. Academia Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 30–35. doi:10.15413/ ajer.2017.0109. Schreerens, J. (2014). Evidence based education policy and practice: The case of applying the educational effectiveness knowledge base, 9. doi:10.7358/ecps-20a4009-sch. Singh, R., & Sarkar, S. (2012, October). Teaching quality counts: How student outcomes relate to quality in teaching in private and public schools in India (Working Paper No. 91). Young Lives. http://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/medi… 0f0b6497400069a/yl-wp91_singh_sarkar.pdf. Soar, R. (1983). Measures of quality in the classroom. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 18(2), 7–15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23869642. Spreen, C. A., & Fancsali, C. (2005). What can we learn about improving teaching and learning from comparing policies across countries? A study of student achievement and teacher quality in Southern Africa. Paper presented at the International Invitational Educational Policy Research Conference, Paris, France. http://www.sacmeq.org/ research.htm. Stewart, V. (2011). Raising teacher quality around the world. The Effective Educator, 68(4), 16–20. doi:10.1177/003172171109200824. Ulug, M., Ozden, M., & Eryilmaz, A. (2011). The effects of teachers’ attitudes on students’ personality and performance. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30. 738–742. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.144. Valeeva, R., & Kalimullin, A. (2019). Learning to teach in Russia: A review of policy and empirical research. doi:10.5040/97813500068711.0020. Van der Berg, S., & Louw, M. (2007). Lessons learnt from SACMEQ II: South African student performance in regional context (Working Paper No. wp-16–2007). Department of Economics and the Bureau for Economic Research, The University of Stellenbosch website: https://ideas.repec.org/p/sza/wpaper/wpapers47.html. Velez, E., Schiefelbein, E., & Valenzuela, J. (1993). Factors affecting achievement in primary education. Human Resource Development and Operations Policy (Working Paper No. 12186). Retrieved from the World Bank website: http://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/748151468739513783/pdf/multi-page.pdf. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1–30. doi:10.14507/epaa.v10n12.2002. Wu, K. B., Goldschmidt, P., Boscardin, C. K., & Sanker. D. (2009). Secondary education in India: Universalizing opportunity. http://crossasia-repository.ub.uniheidelberg.de/3517/1/Secondary%20Education%20India.pdf. Yuan, K., Le, Vi-Nhuan., McCaffrey, D., Marsg, J., Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Springer, M. (2012). Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation or reported practices: Results from three randomized studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. http://epa.sagepub.com/content/35/1/3. Zhu, X., & Han, X. (2006). Reconstruction of teacher quality system in China. International Education Journal, 7(1), 66–73. http://webaaps.finders.edu.au/ education/iej/articles/v7n1/Zhu/paper.pdf. Zuercher, D., Yoshioka, J., & Zilliox, J. (2014). A moving target: The problem of defining teacher quality. Athens Journal of Education, 1(3). doi:10.30958/aje.1-3-5.

Part II

Examining Indian Education Policies for Teacher Quality

5

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child Teacher Quality Discourse in NCF 2005

National Curriculum Framework 2005 The Executive Committee of NCERT in India made a decision in 2004 to revise the existing National Curriculum Framework to create a balanced national education system. The decision came in light of the repeated concerns over the quality of learning and the unnecessary academic pressure on schoolgoing children (Pal, 1993). The low quality of education imparted was reflected in the low scores in literacy and numeracy assessment scores in TIMSS 2003. Prior to the report, there were several recommendations made over the past two decades by several committees, including the Ishwarbhai Patel Review Committee (1977), the NCERT Working Group (1984), and the National Policy on Education (NPE) Review Committee (1990), to improve the quality of learning for young children in India, but the curriculum development agencies implemented the recommendations more specifically when the new curriculum was introduced by NPE in 1986 (Pal, 1993). Therefore, the NPE (1986) proposed a new curriculum framework to evolve a more quality- and child-centered national system of education, which was called the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) in 2005. NCERT is responsible for reviewing and formulating the curriculum at regular intervals, considering the fact that a national curriculum cannot be a static document, but rather should be revised at regular intervals to reflect dynamism and the diversity of society, which is reflected in schools (NCERT, 2005). Therefore, the NCF 2005 is a result of revisions made to NCF 1975, 1988, and 2000 by the NCERT in consultation with the National Steering Committee, 21 focus groups, and the position papers prepared by these groups (Yadav, 2013). Despite the NPE’s goal for the NCF 1988 to create a nationally normed and regionally equalized education system, which still reflects the country’s diversity, the NCF 1988 resulted in curriculum overburden, stress, and unenjoyable learning for youth across the nation (NCERT, 2005). The NCF 2005 applies to both private and government elementary and secondary schools and is a document divided into five main areas, namely perspective, learning and knowledge, curriculum areas, school stages and assessment, school and class environment, and systematic reforms.

98 Education Policies for Teacher Quality

Perspective NCF 2005 recognizes the social context of education in India – hierarchies of caste and class system and gender relations that influence education access and participation. It also urges maintenance of cultural diversity, a key characteristic of the country in our multicultural society. It addresses four key issues of educational purpose, educational experience, organization of experience and assessing the learner. Believing in the constructivism approach to learning, the document recommends teachers to be facilitators in an environment where children can construct their own knowledge. The document makes critical observations regarding the Indian schools and reports that they are inflexible, learning is an isolated activity, teachers act like givers of knowledge rather than facilitators, creative thinking is discouraged and overall there is lack of equality, equity, and quality (NCERT, 2006).

Learning and Knowledge One of the main goals of the NCF 2005 is to shift the method of teaching from a textbook-centered, rote learning approach to one that emphasizes a link between learning in school and in the outside world. The NCF 2005 model works on the hypothesis that if the method of teaching mathematics changes, it will positively impact both teacher quality and student learning. Moreover, NCF 2005 advocates that the knowledge a child brings into the classroom from the outside world, her or his experiences, diverse abilities and ways of thinking are valuable resources that should be used and not considered as a hindrance. In respect to mathematics, NCF 2005 gives precedence to the goal of instilling mathematical thinking in a child rather than knowing the subject as a set of rules to be followed. The document stresses mathematization of a child’s thought process, which is to enlarge a child’s way of thinking about mathematics beyond its daily utilitarian value to enlarge the child’s scope of thought (Kumar et al., 2008). Schools are recommended to have both a narrow and a broad aim for the subject, wherein, the narrow aim is to teach numeracy and the broad aim is to instill mathematical language and thought in young minds. Thus, NCF 2005 talks about teaching coherent, ambitious, and important mathematics to a child.

Curriculum NCF 2005 has made certain recommendations to the numerous states in India to develop their curriculum. Where mathematics is concerned, NCF recommends making mathematics more relevant to a child’s daily life, which reduces stress and anxiety to the learner. Therefore, at the primary level, NCERT 2005 suggests use of concrete objects and day-to-day real experiences in teaching abstract mathematics concepts. Along with numbers, the document gives due importance to mathematics ideas like space, data handling, and visual patterns.

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 99 Additionally, the document recommends developing number values and avoiding teaching children bigger numbers. It explicitly states that teachers should “avoid overloading the child’s capacity which can be better used for mastering the logical skills at the earlier stages” (p. 15). At the upper primary level, focus is on mathematical thinking and visualization. Arithmetic is extended to algebra and concepts students learn in early primary years are revisited and taught in depth. Diwan, Batra, and Chabra state, “The attempt is to now understand algebra as a generalization of many of the ideas that are intuitively learnt or seen as patterns and recognizing that all such ideas cannot be generalized” (2004, p. 95). Where the secondary syllabus is concerned, geometry has changed from remembering theorems and proofs to understanding space and spatial relations. Also, as quoted by Diwan et al., “The purpose of mathematics for secondary classes includes consolidating and elaborating the conceptual edifice of the elementary classes” (2004, p. 94). It thus extends to the ability to generalize, prove statements, and make logical arguments. Also, the complicated calculations have been minimized in higher-grade classes by removal of the logarithmic and trigonometric tables in the NCERT books. The goal of NCF is to propose changes to the syllabus of mathematics to ensure that there is no fear or anxiety among children where the subject is concerned. Also, it is hoped that through the changes, the subject is seen as a means of exploration and creation rather than just a way to find correct answers.

School Stages and Assessment To reduce stress and fear among children for mathematics, NCF 2005 recommends school-based and continuous evaluation of children. Accordingly, the learner is assessed during the teaching-learning process. Also, NCF recommends flexibility in the examinations by changing the type of questions asked in the exams. Where internal exams are concerned, schools are given freedom of choice for exam days, types of questions, times and tests to cater to individual student differences. NCERT does recognize that change in public or external exams will take time and requires policy modifications; therefore, currently the focus is on internal exams. NCF also recommends teacher creativity in designing assessments to suit students. Open book exams, group work, and project work in mathematics are some of the ways of assessing a student.

Systematic Reforms Textbooks Diwan, Batra, and Chabra (2012) give samples in textbooks from grades six, seven, and eight to show the changes made by NCF 2005. These include

100 Education Policies for Teacher Quality linking mathematics concepts taught in schools and their day–to-day situations, making provisions in textbooks for collaborative learning, list key terms in the state language familiar to most learners, showing diverse ways in the textbooks to solve a problem. Language Language is another area that NCF is looking into for universalization and equity in mathematics learning in the country. The position paper on mathematics states that since the language used in mathematics textbooks is very different from the language students use in their day-to-day living, it creates anxiety and fear in students. Therefore, it is recommended that the mathematics curriculum contain language that students use in their daily living (NCERT, 2006). The use of daily language will thus make the subject learning fun and interactive, leading to deeper understanding of mathematics. Teacher Education NCF 2005 voices concern over teacher education and comments that teachers are not developed as true professionals. The teacher education system trains teachers as givers of knowledge rather than facilitators and this is apparent from the ‘top-down’ approach to teaching that schools in India follow. Accepting the fact that student learning is related to teacher quality, NCF mandates that a teacher not only teaches, but also understands his or her students well enough to guide them to construct knowledge. This link or interaction between a student and teacher which is necessary for student learning is missing from the schools in the country. Also, teachers are expected not just to follow a given syllabus or textbook, but also participate in creating the syllabus, textbooks, and learning aids. Therefore, teacher competency in respect to training and qualification is a focus in NCF 2005. Although the Indian Constitution highlights the importance of elementary education and deems it to be a “fundamental right and important to individual and national development” (NCERT, 2005, p.8), the initial primary teacher education is still overlooked. At the primary level, the teachers believe that they know mathematics and teach the subject to the children as they remember it from their school days. Similarly, at the secondary and higher secondary level, with the change in the mathematics syllabi since their schooldays and absence of continuous professional development, teachers’ mathematics basics are not strong, leading to poor teaching quality (NCERT, 2005). The position paper on teacher curriculum highlights that a new teacher education program should be formulated at pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher secondary, and graduate levels, and it should be under a recognized university. Also, the teacher education program should be a five-year program after the 10 + 2 level of school education followed by the country. The program should contain core competencies that teachers at all levels from

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 101 pre-primary to graduate levels will follow before their choice of specialization. NCF also states that the teacher program should not be created in isolation but should be connected to the school curriculum, considering the regional context of the school’s location. Finally, the position paper highlights that the teacher program should have a provision for linking the pre- and post-training of teachers through DIET with university-based institutions (NCERT, 2005). The next section uses qualitative methodology to examine NCF 2005.

Document Analysis Content analysis as a qualitative research method is used to analyze the selected official Indian documents to understand how the documents chosen for the book – NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, Draft Policy NEP 2016, Draft Policy NEP 2019 and NEP 2020 frame traditional and non-traditional teacher quality characteristics in reference to student achievement gains. Additionally, the analyses will help examine the shift from 2005 to 2016 in reference to traditional and non-traditional teacher quality characteristics and national competitiveness. Content analysis is non-participant or non-reactive as there is no direct contact between the participants and me (Kuckartz, 2014); therefore, the analyses did not require any Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. The term content analysis is not new and dates back to the year 1910 when Max Weber suggested an enquiry into the content of a newspaper, thus introducing content analysis as a social science research method (Kuckartz, 2014). In respect to quantification of texts, Kuckartz (2014) states that while it can be insightful, the resulting matrix of numerical data is limited in what it can reveal about the text or phenomena under examination. He argues that classical content analysis or quantitative approaches are not the best choice of method of analysis where subjective understanding and interpretation of text is required (Kuckartz, 2014). He introduced qualitative content analysis that focuses on “discovering the meaning within texts and analyzing their communicative content” (Kuckartz, 2014, p. 34). Hsieh and Shannon (2005) define qualitative content analysis as “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (p. 1278). Coding involves labeling segments of the text with brief words or phrases to distill the required information to broad categories or themes (Neuman, 2014). The brief words or keywords selected are highlighted or color-coded in the text manually or through a software (Kuckartz, 2014). Though content analysis reveals the content of the text, it cannot interpret it nor can it determine the “truthfulness of an assertion or evaluate the aesthetic qualities of literature” (Neuman, 2014, p. 372), leading to an amount of bias. However, the authors believe that content analysis enables a thorough examination of the chosen Indian documents to understand how they address or do not address traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators chosen.

102 Education Policies for Teacher Quality The next section justifies the selection of the documents and the chosen qualitative methodology. Document Selection and Policy Briefs The documents for analysis in this book are the NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, Draft NEP 2016, Draft NEP 2019 and NEP 2020. Critical examination of these documents addresses the situation of teacher quality related to student outcomes in mathematics. Although NCF 2005 and NCFTE 2009 are official curriculum frameworks, while Draft NEP 2016, Draft NEP 2019, and NEP 2020 are education policies, these five documents were chosen for analysis as they are an integral part of the Indian education system and contain discourse that is relevant to the book. Also, the five documents constitute the overarching policy documents that outline the education for schools in India including teacher education and they represent all the states in India. As India is a diverse nation with more than 22 different states and various levels of central and state governments, initially, the Indian Constitution gave permission to the state governments to make all decisions regarding education for their respective states. However, control in the hands of the Central Government for education began with the advent of the NCF 2005 when a national curriculum for India was proposed in contrast to individual state curricula (NCERT, 2005). The argument was to propose a national system of education, with respect to curriculum, teacher education, and education requirements, that was capable of responding to India’s geographical and cultural diversity, while integrating the country through common education goals and core values by taking input from various states. State governments were encouraged to convert the various policies into the language of the state by NCERT for the states (NCERT, 2005). The documents chosen are national education documents and accessible to the general public through an internet search. Reliability and Validity To ensure intercoder reliability, two coders independently coded the text. The step of pilot coding took about ten days, when 10% of the relevant sections were chosen. An intercoder reliability of 80% was selected for this research (Kuckartz, 2014), and the coding scheme was revisited and refined until there was an agreement between the coders on 80% of the coding in the pilot phase. Validity in content analysis is proven when the results help the purpose of the analysis (Creswell, 2012). Additionally, in content analysis, researchers must adhere to the core principle of validity, be truthful, and have a neutral and objective view during reporting (Neuman, 2014). Thus, making connections truthfully and objectively interpreting the results from the analysis increases the validity of the analysis.

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 103 Coding System In content analysis, there are no standard measures to code and each study includes its own keywords. Coding requires systematic scanning of the documents, and for this analysis, the latent method of coding was used where “underlying implicit meaning in the content of a text” (Neuman, 2014, p. 373) were critically examined. The keywords, categories, and sub-categories were chosen from the literature review, PISA 2009 school questionnaire, and theoretical framework pertaining to teacher quality indicators and then searched for in the text. Thus, the deductive method of coding, in which concepts or indicators emerge from the theory or previous studies, was used for this analysis. In deductive methods of coding, codes exist first and are applied to the text with the intention of theory testing and not theory building (Kuckartz, 2014). The pre-determined codes or keywords are shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1 Traditional Teacher Quality Indicator Keywords Teacher Qualification Keywords

Teacher Certification Keywords

Professional Development Keywords

       



   

Teacher qualification Teacher Qualification Diploma Entry qualification Master of Education (M.Ed.) Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Teacher human capital

    

Teacher certification Teacher Certificate Valid Authority Acquired skills

In-service training Online training Professional activities Western influence

Table 5.2 Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicator Keywords Teacher Salary/ Performance Pay Keywords

Teacher Absenteeism Keywords

Teacher Qualified in Mathematics Keywords

Teacher Attitude Keywords



  





 

Teacher salary/ Performance pay Monetary incentive Increments



Absent Out of class Teacher attendance log Teacher unpaid leave

 

Subject-matter knowledge Mathematics competency Mathematics skill

  

Teacher and student relationship Positive teacher attitude Teacher and student interactions Motivated teachers

104 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Procedures There are at least five main phases in conducting a content analysis study: planning, development, pilot coding, coding, and analysis (Kuckartz, 2014) as shown in Figure 5.1. The first two phases are the planning and development phase that include determining the research question, hypothesis, and theoretical framework. The third phase is the pilot coding phase where the coding system and categories, sub-categories, and indicators are developed. When choosing the categories and sub-categories, the categories must be ensured to have no overlap and be mutually exclusive (Kuckartz, 2014). The authors had read the proposal prior to starting the pilot coding and had a good understanding of the research questions, theoretical framework, and literature review. Due to the limited number of documents and design of the coding scheme specifically for these documents, the same documents used at the final coding stage were used for pilot coding. During the pilot coding stage, pages were selected from each NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, Draft NEP 2016, and Draft NEP 2019 (see Table 5.3). There was no pilot coding for NEP 2020 and all the 62 pages of the document were coded as shown in Table 8.1. Apart for this, the same procedure of coding as used in the other four documents was followed for NEP 2020. Tables of contents, introductions, epilogues, summaries, and any figures and diagrams were excluded from all three documents. The documents were manually scanned for the identified keywords and any synonyms to the keywords that were missed were added to the relevant categories or sub-categories in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Since the number of documents was limited, data could be manually coded. Schreier (2012) recommends between 10% and 20% of the relevant pages as being a reasonable amount of material for pilot coding. Therefore, the authors chose 10% of the documents for pilot coding (see Table 5.3). The units of analysis were the individual sentences. Every group of words or bullet point that ended in a period was counted as a full sentence during pilot coding. As shown in Table 5.3, to ensure variability, 64 pages (10%) of the total relevant pages (640) from the first four documents were coded during the pilot coding. On each page, sentences to code were manually numbered. While selecting the pages to be included for pilot coding, the authors have tried to include pages relevant to the predetermined categories. Phase 1 Ð Planning Phase 5 Ð Analysis

Phase 4 Ð Coding

Phase 2 Ð Developing

Phase 3 Ð Pilot Coding

Figure 5.1 Phases in Content Analysis. Adapted from Kuckartz (2014).

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 105 Table 5.3 Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding Title

Year

Total Pages

Relevant Pages

Pilot Coded Pages

Final Coding Pages

NCF

2005

122

119

12

119

NCFTE

2009

92

92

9

92

NEP

2016

217

217

22

217

NEP

2019

372

212

21

212

Total

4

803

640

64

640

Pilot coding consists of three stages (Schreier, 2012). In the first stage of trial coding, once the coders are familiar with the research questions, coding procedure, and codes, the trial coding begins. In this stage, both the coders worked independently during this period to code each sentence on the designated pages and thus tried out the viability of the coding frame. Comments or difficulties encountered were independently noted. The trial period for each of the documents lasted between two to four days each. During the second phase of consistent check, the two coders met online several times for a period of nearly one week to clear differences and refine the definitions from the coding table. An Excel spreadsheet was individually maintained by each coder, and the coding was discussed after every few pages to get a better understanding of the scheme and codes. While coding each sentence in pilot coding, a separate category was created for sentences that did not fit any category, marked as “Irrelevant” in the Excel spreadsheets. This was to ensure that all of the data were assigned to categories. The third stage of pilot coding led to adjustments in the coding frame and, therefore, the deductive coding procedure moved to inductive coding where new keywords and categories were added or deleted from the coding frame. For example, transformative society as a common keyword was added during pilot coding. Kuckartz (2014) notes that the first requirement in creating categories in the deductive approach is that “they are distinctive and exhaustive” (p. 27). Therefore, coders ensured that the categories did not overlap each other by clearly describing them as well as specifying the coding guidelines along with keywords in each category. The pilot coding, therefore, acted as a check for reliability to see how well the coding table was formulated in respect to the information needed for the research. A final intercoder reliability coefficient of 89% was achieved, which is a good number to move to the final coding (Schreier, 2012). Details about this number can be found in Appendix A. Though deductive and inductive methods of coding were used and the existing codes were reviewed before final coding, even during final coding, author was open to any additions in the coding scheme that affected the purpose of the analysis. Once the simple percent agreement was reached, the study moved to the fourth and fifth phases. For the fourth phase of coding and the fifth phase of

106 Education Policies for Teacher Quality analysis, the study used MAXQDA, a software tool that supports qualitative research. This software allows for thematic and systematic analysis of written data (www.maxqda.com). This tool assisted in the coding process and was user friendly with clear instructions on how to use it. The chosen documents were uploaded, and the software assisted in searching for the presence of the keywords, which could have been overlooked if the search was done manually. Also, passages or excerpts containing the keywords were highlighted to derive the content regarding the keyword. For this study, the lexical search function of the software was used where keywords chosen were highlighted in every document. Keywords in each category were color coded differently. The keywords that are listed in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 relevant to each category and sub-category of chosen teacher quality indicators were searched for and analyzed for their content and not for the number of times they occurred in each document. The final coding of the documents was conducted in the order of publication dates: NCF 2005 followed by NCFTE 2009, Draft NPE 2016, NEP 2019. Using the MAXQDA software, each document was uploaded one at a time and coded sentence by sentence. Each category, including an “Irrelevant” category for sentences not applicable to the current study, was color coded differently. MAXQDA automatically numbers the sentences during coding which assisted in creating the coding matrix for frequency count. Once each document was coded with MAXQDA, a lexical search for the keywords (manually checking for every single word under the heading “subcategory/ keywords”) to ensure that relevant sentences were not missed while coding. Each sentence was manually coded using the lexical search and crosschecked with the results from the MAXQDA coding and the pages coded during the pilot coding. This was to ensure further reliability in the coding. MAXQDA also features the ability to summarize, store, and retrieve notes made during the search to assist in data analysis. It has a unique feature of providing space on every page for summary and write-ups (www. maxqda.com). Additionally, MAXQDA has numerous visual tools that assist in data analysis and summary writing. The space provided to make notes during coding and the “summary grid” was used. The grid was a great visual tool to note and compare keywords in all the three chosen documents (www.maxqda.com). Data analysis means a search for patterns in data, and once the patterns are determined the researcher interprets them (Neuman, 2014). However, this study did not merely count keywords or derive objective meaning from common themes or patterns. The authors made every attempt to understand the situation of teacher quality indicators in a subjective manner. The documents were analysed chronologically (NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, NEP 2016, NEP 2019, and NEP 2020). The first step in the analysis was going to each of the coded sentences in their respective documents and comparing the results in MAXQDA. Each of the sentences were read, relevant notes were stored in MAXQDA, and any coding adjustments made. Once the data were ready and

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 107 their frequencies recorded, the authors looked for additional information that was relevant to the teacher quality discourse. Detailed qualitative results are presented in Chapter 9. While the initial categories and keywords were derived deductively from the research questions, literature review, theoretical framework, and PISA questionnaires, during data analysis the authors found a common category or theme teacher accountability in all the three documents that was relevant to the study, shown in Table 5.4. For the study, interpretive approach was adopted to understand how each individual chosen document dealt with the traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators. Even after categories were assigned to the text, attention was paid to the wording of each sentence in the context of the relevant paragraph to understand the meaning in its entirety. Similarly, Kuckartz (2014) outlines three potential threats to content analysis: anecdotalism, trustworthiness, and transparency. Kuckartz (2014) explains that anecdotalism happens when selected parts of a text or document are used for the analysis, which can give an inaccurate picture of the data. In this analysis, the authors avoided anecdotalism by selecting and uploading and coding the full four documents. Next, to reduce the possible threat of trustworthiness, authors followed the procedure outlined and analyzed the data objectively. Finally, by outlining detailed explanations on the units of analysis, constructs, coding and analysis methods, authors have tried to maintain transparency in the study. Qualitative Results for NCF 2005 Data frequency tables (see Tables 5.5 and 5.6) that show the percentage of sentences coded in each category in relation to the total number of sentences, including those marked as “Irrelevant” to the study were used to compile the results to understand hope NCF 2005 framed the various teacher quality indicators. Table 5.5 shows the number and percentage of coded sentences pertaining to each traditional teacher quality indicator. In NCF 2005, there were 1,521 sentences. Of these, 1,189 (87%) of the material was irrelevant to the categories based on the coding guidelines. From the relevant material in NCF 2005, there were 197 sentences (13%) coded for teacher qualification, 0 Table 5.4 Additional Teacher Quality Indicators from NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, Draft NEP 2016, and Draft NEP 2019 Category

Description

Coding Guidelines

Subcategory/Keywords

Teacher Accountability

Teacher responsibility towards student learning

Cannot include teacher attitude towards students

Autonomy, responsibility, student/teacher independence, teacher assessment

108 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Table 5.5 Data Frequency Matrix for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in NCF 2005 Teacher Qualification

Teacher Certification

Professional Development

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

NCF 2005

197

13

0

0

101

7

1189

87

1521

100

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in NCF 2005. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

Table 5.6 Data Frequency Matrix for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Including Teacher Accountability in NCF 2005 Teacher Salary/ Performance Pay

Teacher Absentee -ism

Teacher Qualified in Mathematics

Teacher Attitude

Teacher Accountability

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

S

S

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

NCF2005

0

0

0

0

0

0

23

2

11

1 1189

%

%

87 1521 100

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

sentences (0%) coded for teacher certification, and 101 sentences (7%) coded for professional development. Table 5.6 shows the number and percentage of coded sentences pertaining to each non-traditional teacher quality indicator. For NCF 2005, there were 1,521 total sentences in the document, out of which 1,189 (87%) were irrelevant to the categories based on the coding guidelines. From the relevant material in NCF 2005 (332 sentences), there were 0 sentences (0%) coded for teacher salary/ performance pay, 0 sentences (0%) coded for teacher absenteeism, 0 sentences (0%) coded for teacher qualified in mathematics, 23 sentences (2%) coded for teacher attitude, and 11 sentences (1%) coded for teacher accountability. The following section reports the critical contents of the NCF 2005 with respect to each traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicator.

Teacher Quality Discourse in 2005 – NCF 2005 In India, along with efforts to provide universal access to children, the teacher education system has also expanded, but rather unevenly. Most parts of the country have poor infrastructure to train teachers, and out of the five million teachers, only 80% receive some kind of teacher training (Kumar et al., 2008). Furthermore, student teachers get little practical experience due to a lack of

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 109 infrastructure and professional expertise. Also, the curriculum and training given to student teachers does not provide them with insight on the practical applicability of subjects like mathematics and science (Kumar et al., 2008). The launching of the 2010 Right to Education (RTE) shows there is a need to recruit trained teachers because more than 30 million children in India are still out of school. Additionally, the distinction between pre-service and in-service teacher training is blurred. In many schools (private and public), teachers without any training or qualifications are already employed in schools and are now expected to get the required diploma or training within a time specified by RTE 2010. In the NCF 2005, there is evidence of teacher quality discourse that links quality education and teacher quality. Further, NCF 2005 also highlights teachers as key stakeholders to student learning and outcomes. For example, in respect to teacher quality, NCF 2005 states: The availability of qualified and motivated teachers who perceive teaching as a career option applies to all sectors of schools as a necessary precondition for quality.…No system of education can rise above the quality of its teachers, and the quality of teachers greatly depends on the means deployed for selection, procedures used for training, and the strategies adopted for ensuring accountability. (p. 8) NCF 2005 argues that improvement in teacher quality, apart from improving student learning outcomes, will eventually restructure the globe into a place devoid of conflicts. Addressing the globe as “our transformative world”, NCF 2005 addresses ways to “modernize” the system of education to be on par with the world economy (p. 3), where teachers play the role of facilitators and not just individuals who burden children with rote memorization and excessive knowledge. Additionally, NCF 2005 states that “in the context of a fastchanging world and a competitive global context, it is imperative that we respect children’s native wisdom and imagination” (p. 6) and adequately prepare teachers. In this respect, it looks at some key important teacher qualities to enhance student education quality in the country. Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Teacher Qualification NCF 2005 uses the terms “teacher preparation” and “teacher education” in lieu of teacher qualification. It advocates that in order to strengthen teacher education, a new teacher education program should be formulated at pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher secondary, and graduate levels, and it should be under a recognized university. Also, the teacher education program should be a five-year program after the 10 + 2 level of school education followed by the country (NCERT, 2005). NCF 2005 urges including components of

110 Education Policies for Teacher Quality special education, training for effective diagnostic testing for remedial efforts, and awareness of a well-planned student assessment as part of the teacher education program. NCF 2005 further stresses adequate teacher preparation and support for teachers to improve student outcomes, showing that one way to define quality of education in India is through a child’s performance. Furthermore, the role of institutions of higher education in teacher education is highlighted in NCF 2005 where it states, “Institutions of higher education have an important role to play in teacher education and in enhancing the professional status of teachers” (p. 122). In regard to strengthening teacher education, NCF 2005 vocalizes the need for involvement of experts and teachers in preparing teacher education curriculum. Addressing the existing teacher education curriculum in the education programs, the document remarks, “Existing teacher curriculum neither accommodates the emerging ideas in context and pedagogy nor addresses the issue of linkages between the school and innovative educational experiments” (p. 107). The teacher education curriculum should contain core competencies that teachers at all levels from pre-primary to graduate levels will follow before their choice of specialization. NCF 2005 adds that “[e]mphasis on these programs should be on enabling teacher trainees to acquire the ability for self-learning and independent thinking” (p. 107). NCF 2005 argues for inclusion of strategies in teacher education programs that will equip teachers to be well-informed so as to play a more active role in children’s knowledge construction and not just be a “transmitter of knowledge” (p. 18). Being a multilingual country, NCF 2005 urges that it is imperative for teacher education in every Indian state to include language education by which the teacher should be equipped to teach in the local language of the state, the official Indian language (Hindi), and the global language (English). NCF 2005 stresses language education for teachers to enhance student performance in all subjects including mathematics. The document further states that teacher education should be “ongoing and onsite” with support in the form of adequate resources made available in every village, town, and city in the country (p. 39). With respect to mathematics, NCF 2005 recognizes problems in school mathematics education and asserts that teachers lack the confidence, preparation, and support to teach the subject. Additionally, NCF 2005 critiques the current teacher education programs granting Bachelor of Education or Master of Education degrees as lacking inclusive environments and strongly recommends cultural, gender, and special needs sensitivity as part of teacher education curriculum (p. 107). As one of the major goals of NCF 2005 is revamping the existing curriculum, the document champions training teachers for curricular reform. Furthermore, NCF 2005 contends that teacher education should include a significant component of arts education applicable to all subjects, even mathematics. As a champion for quality and equality in education, NCF 2005 proposes equipping teachers with positive strategies to work with children with different abilities and inclusion of special education components in teacher education programs.

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 111 Teacher Certification NCF 2005 does not address teacher certification. Professional Development Regarding the importance of adequate teacher preparation, for a subject like mathematics or science, for example, NCF 2005 advocates professional development for teachers that focuses on specific subjects and not “generic teacher training that does not provide understanding of content, of instructional techniques, and critical issues in mathematics education that is needed by classroom teachers” (p. 13). Emphasizing the requirement of teacher training for teacher quality, the document states that “quality of teachers greatly depends on procedures used for training” (p. 8) and that teacher training will help teachers equip themselves to increase student outcomes. Further quotes in NCF 2005, like “In-service training can play a significant role in the professional growth of teachers and functions as an agent for change in school-related practices” (p. 111) and in-service training can be a “process and not an event whereby teachers receive two to three months of training once every five years” (p. 111), show the importance in the document of in-service training for teachers. NCF 2005 pays attention to pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher training and proposes the education and training be carried out systematically to get quality results from both teachers and students. Additionally, NCF 2005 recognizes the faults in the current teacher education system and strongly recommends professional development for pre-primary, primary, and secondary grade teachers and states that “professionalization of teachers should be reflected in policies governing recruitment, pre-service, and in-service training and working conditions” (p. 102). Finally, the document criticizes the existing divide between preservice and in-service teacher training and proposes that teacher programs should have a provision for linking the pre- and post-training of teachers through the DIET within university-based institutions. Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators NCF 2005 makes no mention of the non-traditional teacher quality indicators of teacher salary/performance pay, teacher qualification in mathematics, and teacher absenteeism. Teacher Attitude NCF 2005 advocates a strong and positive student–teacher relationship with zero tolerance for corporal punishment by teachers. NCF 2005 talks at length about discipline and participatory management where it discusses the need for educating teachers to have a positive attitude. A teacher’s good

112 Education Policies for Teacher Quality attitude and relationship with her or his students is required for a stress-free learning environment for students’ overall growth (NCERT, 2005). Also, a motivated teacher will motivate students who do not seem to be intrinsically motivated (NCERT, 2005). Therefore, teachers should be trained and educated to discipline students with few rules and freedom of expression and thought, inculcating habits of self-discipline (NCERT, 2005). The document also highlights the need for academic and emotional support by teachers to enhance student learning. Specific to mathematics, NCF 2005 proposes that mathematics teachers should have an attitude in class that portrays their belief that every child can learn mathematics, a subject that gives rise to anxiety in students. Teachers should possess an attitude to encourage every child to have an equal opportunity to learn and especially be sensitive to children who learn differently than others (NCERT, 2005). NCF 2005 advises schools to recruit teachers who have a background in guidance and counseling so that no child is unable to learn. NCF 2005 states, “A sensitive and well-informed teacher is able to engage children through well-chosen tasks and questions, so that they are able to realize their developmental potential” (p. 17). Teacher Accountability NCF 2005 stresses teacher accountability and states that teachers should be accountable and responsive to the needs of children and “should view appraisal as a continuous educative process” (p. 108). It also calls for a system for monitoring teaching carefully be put into place in every school. Stressing the importance of teacher autonomy and professional independence in enhancing teacher quality, NCF 2005 says that “teacher autonomy is essential for ensuring a learning environment that addresses children’s diverse needs” (p. 98) and that a teacher, in order to enhance children’s performance, needs autonomy and independence in her or his role. Thus, for systematic reforms in the education system, NCF 2005 recommends “preparing teachers and supporting their professional practice” (p. 111) and suggests giving teachers autonomy and independence in their teaching without much interference by the school heads as another way to improve teacher quality (NCERT, 2005). NCF 2005 is a visionary document that specifies changes in the educational sector in the country mainly through reforms in curriculum, textbooks, teacher education and others. The document stresses on curriculum and learning which is relevant to students for which teachers need to change its approach as being facilitators rather than ‘givers’ of knowledge. Although it dedicates a section on teachers and highlights the lack of professional preparation of teachers through the discourse on various teacher quality indicators, in reality it fails to show how to transform the role and performance of teachers in reality. Nevertheless, it is an important document that has for the first-time linked curriculum to the professional and pedagogical concerns of the child and

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 113 teacher and advocates the importance of strengthening teacher preparation programs in the country. The in-depth analysis of NCF 2005 shows that it is considered an important document in India’s education system as it takes the first stance formally recognizing that the country needs to revamp its education system from one that focuses on rote learning and memorization to education that is relevant to the overall development of the child. The document is the first to start the conversation on “modernizing” the Indian education system, though its focus is on national integration and making education comparable throughout the country (p. 3). Giving utmost importance to teacher quality, NCF 2005 places “different demands and expectations on the teacher, which needs to be addressed both by initial and continuing education” (p. 11). It stresses good teacher quality in order to implement the changes to enhance student learning and the education quality in India.

Conceptual Framework Alignment Where does NCF 2005 fit within the overall conceptual framework presented in Chapter 3 related to the policymaking and implementing process in India? The de facto education-economy link, scripting of NCF 2005 to fit with broader legitimacy-seeking goals, and the decoupled implementation process of NCF 2005 each suggest that NCF 2005 fits within the critical analysis of Indian national education policymaking. De Facto Education–Economy Link in NCF 2005 On page eight of NCF 2005, a highly-legitimized international organization, UNESCO, is referenced. UNESCO’s recently published global monitoring report discusses systemic standards as the appropriate context of the quality debate. From this point of view, the child’s performance needs to be treated as an indicator of systemic quality. (p. 8) This is the only reference to UNESCO in NCF 2005, but it is a key indicator that issues of systemic educational quality are firmly located in measures of student performance. It also serves as an initial indicator that NCF 2005 operates within the de facto education–economy link, specifically alongside the assumption that average student achievement scores are an indication of national education system quality. There is an indication on page 5 of NCF 2005 that globalization and global competencies are a primary concern in the education of India’s children. This suggests a broader concern among Indian policymakers and the public about the role India is or will play in international economic, political, and scientific communities. NCF 2005 (p. 5) states,

114 Education Policies for Teacher Quality UEE makes us aware of the need to broaden the scope of the curriculum to include the rich inheritance of different traditions of knowledge, work and crafts. Some of these traditions today face a serious threat from market forces and the commodification of knowledge in the context of the globalisation of the economy. The development of self-esteem and ethics, and the need to cultivate children’s creativity, must receive primacy. In the context of a fast-changing world and a competitive global context, it is imperative that we respect children’s native wisdom and imagination. The reference to UEE, or universal elementary education, is also a core goal of the Education for All declarations at Jomtien in 1990 and again in Dakar in 2000. While these are also goals for Indian national education, they align closely with international declarations related to the Education for All movement. More so, the focus on universal primary education (UPE) is one that has been taken up by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and beyond (Unterhalter et al., 2015). The connection between education and the economy is made explicit in NCF 2005 on page 116: [Work-centered education is expected to facilitate]…the formation of multiple skills that are relevant for facing the complex challenges of a globalised economy. It is this educational process that calls for the application of critical pedagogy for linking the experience of productive and other forms of work with global knowledge. While the focus of this section of NCF 2005 is specifically on work-centered, vocational and technical education, it is an explicit acknowledgement of the role and goals of education related to a “globalized economy”. The references to “productive” education and forms of work “with global knowledge” suggest the role of education in relation to developing the economy, and that without education, India as a nation and individuals or communities within it may not be fully prepared to participation in the global economy. This section on work-centered education is preceded by recognition (NCF 2005, p. 21) that “[i]ndividual aspirations in a competitive economy tend to reduce education to being an instrument of material success”. There then follows a critique of education that is overly focused on preparing individuals for economic success without also preparing individuals in India to carry the values, norms, and cultures of their communities. The perception, which places the individual in exclusively competitive relationships, puts unreasonable stress on children, and thus distorts values. It also makes learning from each other a matter of little consequence. Education must be able to promote values that foster peace, humaneness and tolerance in a multicultural society. (NCF 2005, p. 21)

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 115 This recognition that the development of education as a strictly competitive and economic function is in some ways anathema to the development of the most egalitarian and peace-oriented values is also a blend of Indian values alongside those of the United Nations, although the UN is not overtly referenced here. Still, the references to economic outcomes resulting from Indian educational curriculum and pedagogy are firmly embedded throughout NCF 2005. Although the terms “economy” and “economic” or some other variation appear throughout NCF 2005, there are several instances where the de facto link between education and the economy is emphasized. Given the high levels of social and economic diversity across India, these economic processes are emphasized often as much for the equitable distribution of educational opportunities and outcomes across socio-economically diverse communities in India as much as for the global participation in economic development. NCF 2005 asserts that the curriculum overall is a venue to build a knowledge base that builds rational thinking, disciplinary mastery, aesthetic appreciation, and good citizenship in order to work and participation in “economic processes” (NCERT, 2005, p. 43). NCF 2005 also asserts that social science subjects are equally important to individual and national level economic development as are the natural sciences (p. 69), and that social sciences aid in the adjustment of Indian youth to “an increasingly interdependent world”. Concerning the importance of testing and accountability, the role that educational testing plays in stratifying society is recognized in NCF 2005 (p. 135), which acknowledges that “there is a need to delink school-leaving board examinations from competitive entrance examinations”. Of course, this also aligns with a global call to deemphasize the influence of testing and accountability, which lives alongside the growing international education assessment industry (Lingard et al., 2017). The role of global testing and accountability in India, specifically, compared to that of intra-national testing linked to academic and social mobility was not as explicit in 2005 as it was in later years after India participated in a limited fashion in PISA 2009, but there were still some broader comments on India’s educational accountability, which aligned with the international critiques being levied at international educational assessments like TIMSS and PISA in this moment. For example, linking accountability with educational “quality” indicators was identified as a contradiction with other calls in Indian educational reform for enhanced equality in educational access, opportunity, and outcomes (Kumar, 2005b). Others, however, were in the same era arguing that more unique and specific indicators were needed in India to estimate the impact that various social, economic, educational, and other programs were having on individual as well as collective outcomes (Kaul, 2005). Legitimacy-Seeking Script of NCF 2005 There are three indicators of legitimacy that have been identified in the organizations literature (Tallberg & Zürn, 2019), which may be used to

116 Education Policies for Teacher Quality identify the degree to which NCF 2005 is a script or model document contributing to legitimacy-seeking more broadly for India’s national education system. The three indicators of legitimacy-seeking are: (1) intensity or frequency of legitimization (or delegitimization) claims (Zaller, 1992); (2) the evaluative tone of communicated messages where negative messages (delegitimation) tend to carry more weight than positive messages (legitimation) (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979); and (3) strength of communicated message in relation to existing contextualized attitudes (Druckman, 2001). An analysis of the communicated messages in NCF 2005 has already aligned the traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators with broader, globalized discourse regarding teacher quality and outcomes. But, this examination of NCF 2005 and its communicated messages also suggests that the policy document itself reflects intense (i.e., frequent) communication of legitimization claims, is largely evaluative in terms of legitimation (i.e., positive) messages, and is heavily-embedded in both the global and Indian national contexts, which makes its legitimization messages quite strong. The intensity or frequency of legitimization claims in NCF 2005 suggests that it is an effective script for legitimizing not only the de facto education– economy link, but that it does so within the context of broader rationales related to equity and equalization of education in India. This overlaps with the third indicator of legitimacy-seeking, which is the strength of communicated messages in relation to contextualized attitudes. There is also a strong recognition of the role that critical pedagogy plays in the development of education in India. It is first mentioned in terms of practicing equal education in India (NCF 2005, p. 8), but is also discussed related to human rights and education (p. 9). Later, starting on page 22, NCF 2005 explains the important role that critical pedagogy plays in the reform of Indian education and curriculum, particularly in terms of introducing “participatory learning and teaching”. While these are all education concepts that were already popularized in the broader academic and pedagogical literature on curriculum and instruction, they were not widely used in reference to Indian education at this time. In other words, the use of critical pedagogy itself was a scripting mechanism to align Indian national education policy with externally legitimized educational approaches more frequently used in western and international research and practice. The fact that a whole section of NCF 2005 was dedicated to a pedagogical framework that was not widely in use or practiced in India suggests that the intensity of this dedicated section is itself a scripting and legitimacy-seeking mechanism. As a national policy document, NCF 2005 is highly evaluative in terms of legitimation through positive messages about the role of curricular reform in opening Indian education to a new era of success. Although negative messages (i.e., delegitimation) tend to carry more weight (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), NCF 2005 remains positive and all of Chapter 5 of the reform document focuses on systemic reforms in a highly evaluative and also highly positive tone. As the Chairperson of the NCF 2005 Steering Committee, Professor Pal, said in the forward to the document (p. iv):

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 117 It was tempting to assign blame for many things that have not gone as well as we wished many decades ago. We have tried to avoid playing the blame game… Even in the “concern for quality” section, which begins on page 102, the critiques of educational practices that have not led to quality outcomes are kept positive and largely separated from the more severe critiques of Indian education, which can devolve into repudiations of the legacy of colonial education, nationalism within Indian education, the use of rote memorization techniques, and the failure of public education in India to effectively address the learning and community concerns among the most marginalized Indian communities (Kumar, 2005a; Seth, 2007). Finally, legitimacy-seeking through NCF 2005 results from the strength of communicated message in relation to existing contextualized attitudes (Druckman, 2001). The key component of this indicator of legitimacy-seeking is how to define “contextualized attitudes”. The attitudes contextualized in NCF 2005 are not contextualized in the empirically observable Indian education system as much as they are in the idealized realm of what Indian policymakers and the middle and upper class public desire Indian education to be. In other words, in the NCF 2005, the context is not one of drastic variation in student learning outcomes, extremes in access to education based on social, cultural, or economic background, or a lack of educational resources for specific, underserved communities, although ample evidence of these types of contexts may be found in India (Khan, 2015). Instead, the context of NCF 2005 is of a middle-to-high income economy, where students attend top universities in large numbers and whose social, economic, and political stature in the world community is rising briskly (i.e., BRICS) (Biswal, 2011). For example, frequent references to the 73rd Constitutional Amendment and the three-tier panchayati raj system (e.g., p. 105) indicate that the steadfast goal of Indian education is to develop a society where each member and community in India is enabled to think, decide and act for their collective interest, to provide for greater participation of the people in development, to ensure more effective implementation of rural development programmes in the state, and to plan and implement programmes for economic development and social justice. This is not to say that issues of infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability are not included in NCF 2005. They certainly are, especially in Chapter 4 of the national document. But, the focus and strength of the communicated messages in NCF 2005 is not on what is lacking, which is one of the reasons why it is a legitimation (positive message) rather than a delegitimation (negative message) document. But, it should also be noted that in a country with as much variation in culture, language, resources, and other systematically disadvantaged communities, the call to implement and build an educational reform

118 Education Policies for Teacher Quality movement in a “decentralised and participatory manner” is an empty call to action, albeit inspirational. Decoupled Implementation Process of NCF 2005 The final phase of the Indian national education policy cycle is the implementation of policy, and in this case the focus is on the implementation of teacher quality reforms. As has already been observed in previous chapters, the implementation of India’s national education policies, especially related to teachers and teacher quality, has been consistently marred by an extreme decoupling of policy and practice. This decoupling has occurred in three areas consistently: infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability. Each of these areas is necessary to build a link between the policy and its practical implementation. Infrastructure, capacity, and sustainability act in concert to facilitate the practical implementation of education policies. As already explained, infrastructure is comprised of the resources, facilities, and both tangible and organizational structures, which provide the materials necessary for a policy to be implemented. In its most basic form, infrastructure means financial resources necessary to implement a policy. Capacity can reflect either the knowledge or skills necessary to implement the policy itself, or it can mean the knowledge and skills that are part of the content delivered as fulfillment of a policy. Sustainability reflects the degree to which a policy is led (i.e., championed) by the key stakeholders and target beneficiaries of a particular policy and the degree to which these stakeholders and beneficiaries are empowered to define, direct, and sustain the implementation of the policy in question. Infrastructure is woven throughout NCF 2005’s Chapter Four. It is discussed in relation to classroom space, school buildings, classroom furniture, educational equipment (including books), and school calendars. There are also intangible infrastructure elements discussed, including children’s rights, community context and culture, student participation, classroom management (i.e., discipline), and inclusion of children with special needs. NCF 2005 serves as more of a vision statement than a mission statement, which is perhaps a fine distinction. The vision for Indian schools is that the space, buildings, furnishings, equipment, scheduling, rights, cultural contextualization, participation, discipline, and inclusion would all meet the highest standards. NCF 2005 Chapter Four includes discussions about libraries, atlases and other resources that one would expect to see in any school around the world, but what NCF 2005 does is it creates caveats for implementation that purport to respond to the “context” of different communities across India. The caveat is worded in this way at the beginning of NCF 2005 Chapter 4 (p. 81): As public spaces, schools must be marked by the values of equality, social justice and respect for diversity, as well as of the dignity and rights of children. These values must be consciously made part of the perspective of the school and form the foundation of school practice.

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 119 This is an eloquent statement that it is difficult to disagree with, but how is it implemented? What steps did the national Indian government take to implement these sorts of declarations, regardless of how eloquent and equitable they sound. Evidence suggests that very little was done to specifically implement standards or practices that would provide a foundation for schools to be “marked by the values of equality, social justice, and respect for diversity” (p. 81). Capacity involves both the development of knowledge and skills among the target beneficiaries as much as among those conducting the training or professional development itself. Following NCF 2005 there were some national level changes to build the quality of teachers in India, but still many years afterwards local initiatives were still being developed independently to bridge the knowledge and skill gaps that NCF 2005 claimed to reform (Singh, 2014). In fact, not only were the teacher preparation curricula, methods, and institutions in India neither systematically standardized nor holistically re-developed in response to NCF 2005, there was and continues to be evidence that few of the capacity-related recommendations of NCF 2005 were implemented, especially related to teacher quality (Batra, 2009). Sustainability of the NCF 2005 through to implementation fell victim to a typical problem among the development of education policies not only in India, but worldwide: a lack of voice and involvement among those stakeholders intended to be the primary beneficiaries. In particular, teachers across the country were not consulted as part of the NCF 2005 development process (Batra, 2005). This is not to say that among the 35 members of the NCF 2005 Steering Committee there were not any educators. There certainly were, but to sustain a national level policy, especially in a country as large and diverse as India requires the complete negotiation and involvement of voices and agency from all corners of the education community. And, in no subsection of the education community is that more important than among teachers, teacher educators, and teacher advocates in India. Still, in the years following the release of NCF 2005, there were ample calls made and plans for teacher involvement in the reform process made (Batra, 2006). Moving Forward with Teacher Quality Reform As the evidence in this chapter suggests, the National Curriculum Framework 2005 was an important policy document for orienting the vision for teacher education in India. Much was said in NCF 2005 about how to make teacher education relevant to the children in classrooms across India. The challenge for NCF 2005 was less how to frame the vision and more about how to bridge such a lofty vision for education in India, and teachers specifically, with the reality of Indian education. The real world of India education was and remains grittier. India’s vast size and complexity make it more than a one-size-fits-all customer. And, here is when the eloquence and vision of NCF 2005, like those

120 Education Policies for Teacher Quality national education policies that follow it, is lost to the practical implementation of the national vision. The question is not one of how it failed to be implemented. The answer to this question is simple. It failed because there was no attempt made at the national, state, or local levels to systematically create standards for implementation, link those to local infrastructure, capacity, and sustainable leadership, and then hold both the policymakers and the local implementation teams responsible for breathing life into NCF 2005. Mostly, this did not happen because there were no local implementation teams and there was no attempt to build a foundation for standards and practice following on NCF 2005. Instead it served and still serves as a vision statement, and it is aligned with some of the best ideals and values that the international community has ever seen. If the purpose of NCF 2005 was to meaningful change the practice of education and the quality of teachers in India, it was a spectacular failure. But, if the purpose of NCF 2005 was to build a complete, internationally recognized, and aspirational vision for education, and especially teacher quality in India, then it was beyond successful. More importantly, the vision for education in India that is espoused in NCF 2005 firmly places India within the international community and among other middle- or high-income, developed countries in terms of the goals, values, and ideology related to not only equitable education and the development of human rights, but also the de facto link between education and the economy.

References Batra, P. (2005). Voice and agency of teachers: Missing link in national curriculum framework 2005. Economic and Political Weekly, 4347–4356. Batra, P. (2006). Building on the National Curriculum Framework to enable the agency of teachers. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 4(1), 88–118. Batra, P. (2009). Reclaiming the space for teachers to address the UEE teaching– learning quality deficit. Theme Paper for the Mid-term Review of EFA, published by NUEPA, September. Biswal, K. (2011). Secondary Education in India: Development Policies, Programmes and Challenges. CREATE Pathways to Access. Research Monograph No. 63. Falmer, UK: University of Sussex. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522057.pdf. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Diwan, H., Batra, N., & Chabra, I. (2012). Mathematics up to the secondary level in India. In R. Ramanujam & K. Subramaniam (Eds.), Mathematics education in India: Status and outlook (pp. 89–107). Mumbai, India: Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1049732305276687.

Making Teaching Relevant to the Child 121 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. Kaul, V. N. (2005). Indicators and public accountability in India. In OECD (Ed.), Statistics, knowledge and policy key indicators to inform decision making: Key indicators to inform decision making (pp. 476–486). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Khan, S. (2015). Evolving consciousness in the developing world: Analysis of national curriculum framework 2005 for enrichment of quality of life in school learning environments. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 169–180. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis. London, UK: Sage Publishing. Kumar, K. (2005a). Political agenda of education: A study of colonialist and nationalist ideas. Mumbai, India: SAGE Publications. Kumar, K. (2005b). Quality of education at the beginning of the 21st century: Lessons from India. Indian Educational Review, 40(1), 3–28. Kumar, S. R., Dewan, H., & Subramaniam, K. (2008). The preparation and professional development of mathematical teachers. In R. Ramanujam & K. Subramaniam (Eds.), Mathematics education in India: Status and outlook (pp. 5–105). Mumbai, India: Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education. Lingard, B., Rezai-Rashti, G., & Martino, W. (Eds.). (2017). Testing Regimes, Accountabilities and Education Policy. New York: Routledge. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). National curriculum framework 2005. NCERT. https://ncert.nic.in/pdf/nc-framework/nf2005-english.pdf. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2006). Position paper on teacher education for curriculum renewal. New Delhi, India: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.ncert.nic.in/new_ncert/ncert/rightside/links/pdf/focus_group/math.pdf. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approach. Pearson. Pal, Y. (1993). Learning without burden. http://www.teindia.nic.in/Fules/Reports/ CCR/yash%20Pal_committee_report_1wb.pdf. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seth, S. (2007). Subject lessons: The western education of colonial India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Singh, G. (2014). Empowering Teachers to Implement CCE in Classroom: ODL Initiatives. Issues and Ideas in Education, 2(2), 177–184. Tallberg, J., & Zürn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations, 14, 581–606. Unterhalter, E, Poole, N, and Winters, N. (2015). Education, information, and knowledge. In J. Waage & C. Yap (Eds.), Thinking Beyond Sectors for Sustainable Development (pp. 51–61). London, UK: Ubiquity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bao.g. Yadav, S. K. (2013). National study on ten year school curriculum. New Delhi, India: Department of Teacher Education National Council of Educational Research and Training. doi:10.18535/ijsshi/v3i8.01. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

6

The Professionalization of Teaching Teacher Quality Discourse in NCFTE 2009

The backbone of any high-quality education system is frequently assumed to be the teachers (LeTendre & Wiseman, 2015). The causal logic is that if the teachers are good, then the students learn, and the school, system, economy, or nation as a whole is strengthened (Hanushek, 2011). This assumed causal connection between the quality of teachers and of education systems as a whole is common among both policymakers and the public in most countries worldwide, India included (Baily, 2012; Kumar, 2005). The history of the professionalization of teachers in India is complicated due to India’s colonial legacy as well as its post-colonial development as a rapidly modernizing social, economic, and political state. There is also the challenge that teachers have been professionalized as well as deprofessionalized throughout history. For example, teachers were deprofessionalized in India as part of British colonialism as well as in the post-colonial period (Ginsburg et al., 1988). The definitions of the professionalization of teaching are also varied across the field of education. NCFTE 2009 focused on providing well-planned and research-based teacher preparation and training programs in India as a primary approach to the professionalization of teaching. This is an approach that has been validated and legitimized by educational development experts, organizations, and other national education educations (Akiba, 2013; Dyer, 2005; Hammerness & Klette, 2015). There are, however, additional facets to the professionalization of teaching that should follow research-based training. These include control over: (1) expert knowledge; (2) training and credentials; (3) self-policing and ethical codes; (4) occupational domain; and (5) the workplace (Abbott, 1988; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Larson, 1977; Wiseman & Matherly, 2009). The approach of the NCFTE 2009 is to focus on generating expert, research-based knowledge about teaching and pedagogy and increase the rigor and quality of teacher training using this research base. Of course, improving the teacher training process and content is not the only challenge that India faces in terms of teacher professionalization. As is alluded to or explicitly stated in each of the national policy frameworks related to teacher quality in the 21st century, India is a large and diverse nation, and as a result equity issues in education are just as important as the quality issues (Rose & Alcott, 2015). Gender equity in education is one area, in

The Professionalization of Teaching

123

particular, that has been called out in previous research on education in India (Bandyopadhyay & Subrahmanian, 2008; Ramachandran, 2004; Rao, 2010; Stromquist, 2007), but the gendered distribution of teachers is another area of teacher quality that contributes to the professionalization of teaching. Evidence shows that as late as 2003, the teaching profession in India was still not gender-balanced, with approximately “90 percent of single-teacher schools… [in India]…staffed by men” (UNESCO, 2003, p. 146). This is especially relevant to note since single-teacher schools accounted for approximately 20% of all schools in India at the time (Ramachandran, 2003). Although the Draft National Education Policy of 2019 and the National Education Policy of 2020 both focus on the importance of recognizing and incorporating diverse cultures, languages, and perspectives into Indian education, the NCFTE 2009 does not address this gender gap in its focus on teacher quality through professionalization as fully as it does in the proposed content of teacher education curriculum (pp. 31–32). Although the emphasis on training and education from a research base is a good starting point, any professionalization efforts are likely to be more successful if the key stakeholder populations are also included in the process. Since women comprise approximately half of India’s population, a gender equity component to recruiting, selecting, training, and supporting teachers is also a key to the professionalization of teaching that is not fully addressed in NCFTE 2009.

Framework of NCFTE 2009 NCFTE 2009 is a sequel to earlier curriculum frameworks, which include the NCFTE 1978, NCFTE 1988, and the NCFTE, 1998. However, NCFTE 2009 states the relationship between teacher quality and educational quality overall much more clearly. In fact, NCFTE 2009 explicitly states that “teacher education and school education have a symbiotic relationship” (p. iii). This statement makes it clear that teacher education and school education are tied together when it comes to development and improvement of education overall (NCTE, 2009, p. iii). The framework was developed as a response to the curriculum framework proposed by NCF 2005, which placed new demands and expectations for teachers and teacher education given the poor state of teacher quality in the country. Despite the National Curriculum Frameworks from 1978, several crucial problems persisted in relation to teacher education. These persistent problems included the backlog of untrained teachers, increase in demand for trained teachers, lack of pre-service teacher certification, increase in substandard teacher education institutions, and lack of teacher accountability (NCTE, 2009). Teachers were “givers” rather than facilitators of knowledge, a fact severely criticized by the NCF 2005, and reminiscent to Friere’s (1996) “banking concept” of education. It was publicly acknowledged that the role of teachers needed to be changed so that teachers are empowered and become creators of knowledge as well as thinking professionals. Thus, there was a need for a new

124 Education Policies for Teacher Quality curriculum framework for teacher education which prepares teachers to have sustained and enriching engagement with learners and the school. Preparing teachers to be professional and humane to learners is the core foundational issue on which the NCFTE 2009 is based. While developing the curriculum framework for teacher education, NCTE noticed that the existing pre-service and in-service training of teachers was both inadequate and poorly managed by most states in the country. There was a huge variation in the need and status of teachers at different levels in schools (government, private, and public) across the country. The Education Commission (1964–66) critically looked at the various issues of teacher education around India. It recommended “professionalization of teacher education, development of integrated programs, and comprehensive colleges of education and internship” (NCTFE 2009, p. 7). The National Commission on Teachers (1983–85) recommended five-year integrated courses and internship, while the NPE (1983) recommended overhauling of teacher education to give it a “professional orientation” (NCFTE 2009, p. 7). Further recommendations by the NPE (1990) Review Committee and the National Advisory Committee on Learning without Burden (1993) to overhaul teacher education drew attention to the need for supervised teacher internships under mentor teachers. The Advisory Committee recommended increasing teacher accountability by involving them in curriculum and textbook preparation and training teachers to teach students through innovative modes of discovery, observation, and activity (NCTFE 2009, p. 7). All these policy recommendations were considered while framing NCFTE 2009. NCFTE 2009, developed by the NCTE, thus gives a systematic and comprehensive framework for teacher education. It envisions an ideal situation where teachers enjoy being with children, are committed and responsible towards the upliftment of society and treat children as active participants. For this, NCFTE 2009 viewed teacher education as a “holistic enterprise involving actions of different kinds and from multiple fronts aimed at the development of the total teacher – knowledge and understanding, repertoire of skills, positive attitudes, habits, values and the capacity to reflect” (p. 23). The framework recognizes the importance of both initial and continued professional development of teachers although it places more importance on initial teacher education. To this effect, NCFTE 2009 notes that initial teacher education “marks the initiation of the novice entrant to the calling and as such has tremendous potential to imbue the would-be teacher with the aspirations, knowledge-base, repertoire of pedagogic capacities and humane attitudes” (italics added for emphasis, p. 2). NCFTE 2009 articulates that to give teaching the status of being a serious profession, it is urgently required that teacher education should be raised to the university level and the teacher preparation program’s duration and rigor be increased. To achieve the vision of a sound teacher education that will create a high quality, professional and committed teacher force, the NCFTE 2009 curriculum framework broadly includes the following topics: (1) context;

The Professionalization of Teaching

125

(2) concerns and vision of teacher education; (3) sample redesigned schemas of current teacher education programs; (4) evaluating the developing teacher; (5) in-service education and continuous professional development; and (6) preparing teacher educators. Curricular Areas NCFTE 2009 The framework thus created by NCFTE 2009 is designed for the main curricular areas of teacher education along with strategies to implement it. It is comprehensive and includes mathematics, social sciences, language, knowledge, theory, practice, and psychological as well as philosophical sections. As Figure 6.1 demonstrates, the framework is divided into three areas: Area A (Foundations of Education), Area B (Curriculum and Pedagogy), and Area C (School Internship). While Area A and Area B include foundations of education and curriculum and pedagogy curricula, which was already included in the earlier teacher education program by NCF 2005, Area C includes school internship, which is a crucial and newly introduced component of a teacher’s education. NCTE, 2009 observed that it is common knowledge that practice teaching (also known as teacher internship), which constitutes the most functional part of the teacher preparation has suffered severe neglect and the common complaint was that theory dominated the curriculum. As a result, practice teaching continued to suffer (p. 40). Therefore, practical teacher training or teacher internship is a crucial part of Area C. Area A includes courses under three broad rubrics namely, learner studies, contemporary studies, and educational studies. Area B includes curriculum studies and pedagogic studies, and Area C includes school internship making NCFTE 2009 curriculum for teacher education unique from previous policies relevant to teacher education (Mondal et al., 2015). Together, the three areas form the core classroom curriculum for teacher education at all levels: preschool, elementary, secondary, and upper or senior secondary school. The three areas though distinct are interconnected for the holistic development of teachers, a fact specified clearly by NCFTE 2009 (see Figure 6.1). Explaining the framework, NCFTE 2009 gives the example of a very young child at the pre-primary or primary level, where the focus of teacher education would be “psychological development, processes of thinking and learning, socialization processes and the construct of childhood…along with engagement with subject-content and questions of epistemology” (p. 25). While, the focus of teacher education at the upper and secondary school level would be issues relating to adolescence, and deeper engagement with school knowledge where teachers would need to be competent in subject area content. At all levels of schooling, topics on diversity, equity, children’s rights, physical and peace education, and others would form the core of teacher education (p. 26). The comprehensive curriculum framework (see Figure 6.1) bears testimony to the effort undertaken by NCTE to improve teacher education and teacher quality in the country. Although NCTE has not yet clearly or definitively

Developing the Self and Aspirations as a Teacher

Aims of Education, Knowledge and Values

Teacher and Learner in Society

Gender, School and Society

Educational Studies

Contemporary Studies

Language Proficiency and Communication

Knowledge and Curriculum

Curriculum Studies

Languages

Mathematics

Social Studies

Sciences

Pedagogic Studies

Area B Curriculum and

----------------------------------------- Pedagogy

Assessment and Evaluation Studies

Classroom -based Research Projects

Visit to Innovative Centres of Pedagogy and Learning

Four days a week for a minimum period of 12-20 weeks including one week of classroom observation of a regular teacher

Area C School Internship

Figure 6.1 Curricular Areas of Initial Teacher Preparation in NCFTE 2009. Reprinted from NCFTE (2009, p. 27).

Childhood, child and adolescent development and learning

Learner Studies

Area A Foundations of Education

Teacher Education Programmes: Curricular Areas

126 Education Policies for Teacher Quality

The Professionalization of Teaching

127

defined teacher quality, it identified both the core traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators while creating the teacher curriculum. The following section analyses the NCFTE 2009 document using a content analysis approach.

NCFTE 2009 Content Analysis Using content analysis, which is a qualitative research methodology described in Chapter 5, 10% of the relevant pages (92 pages) from NCTFE 2009 document were coded. Relevant pages are those pages from the document that contain one or more of the selected keywords (see Tables 6.1 6.2, and 6.3). Tables of contents, introductions, epilogues, summaries, and any figures and Table 6.1 Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding Title

Year

Total Pages

Relevant Pages

Pilot Coded Pages

Final Coding Pages

NCFTE

2009

92

92

9

92

Table 6.2 Data Frequency Matrix for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in NCFTE 2009 Teacher Qualification

Teacher Certification

Professional Development

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

NCFTE 2009

345

40

3

1

201

23

256

30

848

100

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

Table 6.3 Data Frequency Matrix for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Including Teacher Accountability in NCFTE 2009 Teacher Salary/ Performance Pay

Teacher Absenteesm

Teacher Qualified in Mathematics

Teacher Attitude

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

NCFTE 2009

11

2

10

1

2

1

7

Teacher Account ability

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

%

S

%

S

%

S

1

13

2

256

30

848 100

%

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

128 Education Policies for Teacher Quality diagrams were excluded. The document was manually scanned for the identified keywords as listed in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in Chapter 5. Qualitative Results for NCFTE 2009 Data frequency matrices show the percentage of sentences coded in each category in relation to the total number of sentences, including those marked as “irrelevant” to the study. These matrices were used to compile results, which provide evidence about how NCFTE 2009 framed the various teacher quality indicators. In NCFTE 2009, there were 848 sentences analyzed for content related to traditional teacher quality, out of which 256 sentences (30%) were irrelevant. From the sentences relevant to the study (592 sentences), 345 sentences (40%) were coded for teacher qualification, three sentences (1%) were coded for teacher certification, and 201 sentences (23%) were coded for professional development. For NCFTE 2009, in respect to non-traditional teacher quality indicators, there were again 848 total sentences in the document, out of which 256 (30%) were relevant to the study. From the relevant sentences in NCFTE 2009, 11 sentences (2%) coded for teacher salary/performance pay, 10 sentences (1%) coded for teacher absenteeism, two sentences (1%) coded for teacher qualified in mathematics, seven sentences (1%) coded for teacher attitude, and 13 sentences (2%) coded for teacher accountability. The following section discusses the teacher quality discourse in respect to the selected traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators present in NCFTE 2009 as determined by the coding.

Teacher Quality Discourse in 2009 – NCFTE 2009 The framework highlights the context, issues, and contents of the curriculum for teacher education and stresses the need to treat teaching as a profession in which revamping teacher preparation is an urgent need. Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Teacher Qualification NCFTE 2009 recognizes the symbiotic relationship between teacher quality and student outcomes and the need for academic and professional standards for teachers. This recognition is explicitly stated in NCFTE 2009 (p. 1) as follows: The importance of competent teachers to the nation’s school system can in no way be overemphasized. It is well known that the quality and extent of learner achievement are determined primarily by teacher competence and it is a common knowledge that the academic and professional standards of teachers constitute a critical component of the essential learning conditions for achieving the educational goals.

The Professionalization of Teaching

129

NCFTE 2009 clearly demarcates the differences between teacher initial education and professional development. It asserts that initial teacher education plays an important role in the making of a teacher as it marks “the initiation of a novice entrant to the calling” of the profession (p. 2). NCFTE 2009 also stresses the importance of direct human contact and social interaction among student teachers as the “core requirement for initial teacher preparation” (p. 17). The document repeatedly asserts the need for a sound and systematic teacher education program that encompasses the changing needs of society and can be upgraded with innovative skills and practices as needed. Regarding teacher education for both elementary and secondary school positions, NCFTE 2009 stipulates the ideal duration of teacher education as four years after senior secondary or two years after a bachelor’s degree program, indicating that this “would provide enough time and opportunity for self-study, reflection and involvement, engagement with teachers, school, classroom and pedagogic activity and rigorous theoretical study” (p. 46). Prior to explaining the curricular area of teacher education, NCFTE 2009 documents shortcomings of teacher education and its vision for a teacher and teacher education in India. First, it notes that initial teacher preparation in India for elementary school teachers suffers from isolation, a low profile, and poor visibility because it is a non-degree program. NCFTE 2009 makes a valid observation here that the early years’ education of children is crucial for the future of the individual and national development, and, therefore, teachers at elementary levels should be especially well-prepared and trained. At the time of publication of NCFTE 2009, holders of a short-term diploma in education (D.Ed.) could teach at elementary schools in the country. Arguing that the short duration of the course failed to equip teachers with required pedagogical skills and training needed to understand children’s psychological needs and facilitate their learning, NCFTE 2009, therefore, suggested the need to upgrade the elementary teacher education system. In this regard, it cites “enhancing the entry qualification and duration of training making it equivalent to a degree program including variety of scholarship from the sciences, social sciences, mathematics and the languages” (p. 8). Second, NCFTE 2009 stressed the need to strengthen secondary teacher education in terms of intensity, rigor, and duration. At the time of its publication, there was an excess of private colleges in India that provided sub-standard education and training to teachers, and the increase in numbers of such institutions needed to be curbed by strict regulations. Such institutions and programs do not prepare teachers to impart quality education, but instead train teachers only as “transmitters” of knowledge (p. 11). Third, NCFTE 2009 realized that the one-year B.Ed. degree program lacked practical experience and proposed increasing the duration to two years to make it more relevant to children’s learning in a transforming global situation. Fourth, teacher education in India is noted to lack professional preparation of teachers in the sense that along with knowledge, institutions need to

130 Education Policies for Teacher Quality produce reflective teachers with a passion for teaching and teachers who possess positive attitudes and skills (NCTE, 2009). This suggests that an attempt was made to search for the best teacher education program to improve teacher quality in India’s transformative society. While shaping teacher education for the country, NCFTE 2009 also looked at teacher characteristics globally. NCFTE 2009’s vision for teacher education kept intact the Indian culture and values and yet took into consideration globally validated teacher education principles and ideas. To this effect, the document purported that teacher education should be flexible with the changing times, empower teachers, and be “liberal, humanistic” (p. 19), and responsive to individual children’s needs. Also, NCFTE 2009 asserted that teacher education should prepare teachers to understand how students learn and how to actively engage students in learning. Furthermore, it noted that teacher education should train teachers to critically examine textbooks rather than accepting them as a given. Finally, NCFTE 2009 said that teacher education should enable teachers to understand that the responsibility of a teacher is not limited inside the classroom but extends beyond with the need to educate students as responsible citizens. A strong component of NCFTE 2009 was the curricular area of teacher education to improve the academic and professional standards of a teacher to achieve educational outcomes. Evidence of teacher education curriculum is, therefore, extensive in the document (see Figure 6.1). NCFTE 2009 provided a comprehensive framework for a teacher education curriculum that included every aspect of education, including the theoretical, practical, psychological, philosophical, and socio-economic, to bring about a positive change in teacher education. The document asserted that teacher education had to cover a broad spectrum of areas for a quality teacher (p. 111). NCFTE 2009 explained that the teacher education curriculum framework is divided into three areas: Area A (Foundations of Education), Area B (Curriculum and Pedagogy), and Area C (School Internship). Area A, Foundations of Education, included learner studies, contemporary studies, and educational studies, explained as follows: 



Learner Studies: NCFTE 2009 acknowledged that pre-service teacher education at all levels should be designed to study children and understand how they learn. For this, teacher education should include subjects like psychology, philosophy, and sociology that equip teachers with knowledge of children’s learning and thinking at all age levels. The curriculum ideally would include two to three theory courses and a practicum. Contemporary Studies: Teacher education should generate awareness of human and child rights within the Indian society. Also, teachers should be educated to understand the classroom environment as a social context and the relationship of education to society and humanity. This curriculum would include one to two theory courses, projects, seminars, and assignments.

The Professionalization of Teaching 

131

Educational Studies: Teacher education curriculum should include the meaning of education, its aims, values, and knowledge, and its relevance to children’s learning. Through Educational Studies, teachers should be provided with a firm foundation of educational theory and the practice of education. This curriculum would ideally include one to two theory courses with assignments, built-in field-based units of study, term papers, and presentations.

Area B of the curriculum includes Curriculum Studies, Pedagogic Studies, and Assessment and Evaluation Studies, explained as follows: 





Curriculum Studies: NCFTE 2009 rationalizes the need to include general education principles in teacher education to develop the conceptual foundation of prospective teachers. Curriculum Studies engages student teachers with “epistemological and ideological assumptions about knowledge, learner, and learning; their implications for curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in school education” (p. 28). The language component is also included in Curriculum Studies as a teacher’s language proficiency and communication skills are critical factors in student learning. It includes four to six theory courses with recording and analysis of observations. Pedagogic Studies: The focus is to understand school subjects and their pedagogic approach in the context of the learner and school. For example, instead of teaching basic computations in mathematics, the subject is made more relevant to the child through its usage in daily life. It includes four to six optional courses with a practicum. Assessment and Evaluation Studies: The idea is to expose student teachers to the history of evaluation and assessment and apply it not just to track students’ outcomes but also their overall development. It includes one theory course with group and individual assignments and a practicum.

Lastly, Area C focuses on practical application of the theoretical aspect of teacher education. NCFTE 2009 recommends that every student teacher should have four days a week of practical teaching for between 12 to 20 weeks for both two-year and four-year degree programs. The document further adds that internships should be a partnership between the school and the student teacher, and schools should make resources available to the student teacher. The student teacher develops unit plans and maintains reflective journals under a mentor. However, although the NCFTE 2009 carefully maps units that should be included in the teacher education curriculum, it reveals that “a teacher education curriculum framework needs to be in consonance with the curriculum framework for school education” (p. 111). This reaffirms the belief that teacher education curriculum should not be a static document, and teachers should be trained to rise to the demands of the learner. Also, with the NCFTE 2009 being a template for teacher education across the country, it should ideally be adapted per individual state needs, keeping in mind the aims, goals, and

132 Education Policies for Teacher Quality values of the document. Believing teacher education curriculum to be a relevant and planned effort, NCFTE 2009 calls for “participatory curriculum planning involving all stakeholders, modular organization of curriculum in terms of critically engaging with theory and bringing practice within its perspective and a professional approach” (p. 9). Practicum courses are an integral part of the NCFTE 2009 teacher education curriculum, showing that for teacher quality to improve, hands-on experience helps with “learning to integrate ideas, experiences, and professional skills” (p. 38). To ensure that teacher education curriculum is systematically put together and research based, NCFTE 2009 advocates the need for research to document practices that can be included in the study for student teachers and also innovative strategies and models to be included in teacher education curriculum. Thus, through a single model of teacher education curriculum, NCFTE 2009 includes all features to bring a desirable change in teacher education and an impact on the educational system in India. NCFTE 2009 documents the need to replace the teacher education model in place at that time, which was short in duration and low in planning and quality of teaching, with a model that “integrates general education with professional development along with intensive internships with schools” (p. 46). Table 6.4 has a comparison of a few key features of teacher practice in place prior to NCFTE 2009 and teacher practice proposed at the time of publication of the curriculum framework. Although the NCFTE 2009 creates an invaluable framework for teacher education, it realizes that the framework will remain just a document unless Table 6.4 Teacher Education Before NCFTE 2009 Versus Teacher Education Proposed by NCFTE 2009 Practice of Teacher Education Before NCFTE 2009 Publication

Proposed Practice of Teacher Education

Focus on psychological aspects of learners without adequate engagement with context

Understand the social, cultural, and political context in which learners grow

Knowledge treated as external to the student and something that has to be transmitted from teacher to student

Knowledge generated in the shared context of teaching, learning, and personal experiences through critical enquiry

Lack of sufficient student teacher internships

Planned and supervised internships proposed

Short training schedule after general education

Sustained engagement of long duration

Subject-matter competency largely ignored

Understand the need for subject-matter competency

Students’ assumptions about social realities, the learner, and the process of learning are not addressed

Students’ own position in society and their assumptions are addressed as part of classroom discourse

Note. Adapted from NCFTE (2009, p. 52).

The Professionalization of Teaching

133

implemented by qualified, competent, and professional teacher educators. However, there is a shortage of qualified educators for teachers due to a lack of professional development for pre-school and elementary school teachers and inadequate design for post-graduate programs in education (NCTE, 2009, p. 75). To address the issue, NCFTE 2009 highlighted the need for teacher educators and outlined their requirements. The document stressed the requirement of a minimum of a B.Ed. degree for elementary teacher educators and an M. Ed. for secondary school teacher educators. The aim was to have proficient teacher educators to educate and train teachers that have an impact on student development and learning. Teacher Certification Teacher certification in India is obtained by a teaching certificate or short-term certificate course from authorized and recognized institutions like CENTA. In contrast, teacher qualification includes pre-service teacher education (e.g., degree or diploma courses) from private and public institutions recognized in India. NCFTE 2009 does not discuss teacher certification and the focus of the document is on teaching degrees and diplomas. Professional Development Regarding a need for professionalization of teacher education in the country, NCFTE 2009 upholds “initial and continuing professional development to ensure adequate supply of professionally competent teachers” (p. 2) and development of “reflective teachers” (p. 15). In respect to the training of teachers, NCFTE 2009 recognizes the need for activities and interactions that would contribute towards sustaining professional development. The document notes that, as professional development is an important ingredient in enhancing teacher quality, currently there are many opportunities and avenues for such, with varying degrees of motivating teachers and improving student outcomes. Professional development still lacks adequate management and compromises on treating teaching as a profession. NCFTE 2009 strongly recommends careful planning and designing of in-service or professional development training and recommends certain routes towards teachers’ continuing professional development. First, there can be short-term and long-term courses, ranging between four to five days and up to three months, on specific teacher topics to enable teachers to strengthen their knowledge in any area. Second, teachers can be trained on using distance media like the internet that acts as a resource for ideas and for wider dissemination of knowledge with professionals worldwide. Third, teachers can be encouraged to take a sabbatical year for study and research that will assist them in enhancing their teaching in class for the betterment of student learning. Fourth, teachers can be encouraged to attend conferences and meetings connected to the profession, with schools covering

134 Education Policies for Teacher Quality the expense. Fifth, schools can provide planned and professional workshops regularly for teachers based on teachers’ needs and concerns and make available required resources for them. Sixth, teacher fellowships can be granted to teachers to enable them to work as faculty in colleges that are preparing future teachers. Finally, schools can provide the opportunity for exchange programs for teachers within the country and outside and utilize services of visiting teachers to enhance the quality of learning in schools (NCTE, 2009). Furthermore, NCFTE 2009 advocated certain mechanisms be put into place for professional development and for enacting the curriculum framework. One of the mechanisms it strongly recommended was resource centers or teacher learning centers (TLCs). These centers are proposed to assist both pre-service training and professional or continuing education for teachers. Furthermore, a cluster of schools selected by the DIETs to place pre-service student teachers for internship can also be used for in-service or professional development for existing schoolteachers. NCFTE 2009 pointed out that the need and awareness for professional development gave rise to more than 500 DIETs previously, although no more than 75% of the institutions were functional at the time of publication with the reason being lack of qualified faculty to provide professional training or in-service training to teachers. NCFTE 2009, recognized the need for expansion and reforms in professional development to enhance teacher quality and make it meaningful for the progress of children, recommends strengthening of Institutes of Advanced Studies in Education (IASEs) that are responsible for in-service training of secondary teachers and making them responsible for professional development of elementary teachers as well. Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Teacher Salary/Performance Pay Apart from stating that the quality of a teacher includes teachers’ status, remuneration, conditions of work, and their academic and professional education and that violation of any of the above factors could impact teacher quality (p. 2), NCFTE 2009 made no other comment on teacher salary or performance pay. Teacher Qualification in Mathematics NCFTE 2009 did not discuss in detail teacher subject-matter competency, though it did mention that specific subject training for teachers is a part of the curriculum framework. Teacher Absenteeism NCFTE 2009 did not address teacher absenteeism.

The Professionalization of Teaching

135

Teacher Attitude NCFTE 2009 stressed the positive attitude that teachers have to possess, apart from initial and on-going teacher education and professional development. It purported that a teacher in a global world “must be equipped not only to teach but to understand children” (p. 2). Like NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009 also mandated that teachers should refrain from any form of corporal punishment and be facilitators of children’s learning, helping students “construct knowledge and meaning” and not just be “givers” of information (p. 3), while displaying an encouraging attitude towards their students. Teacher Accountability With respect to teacher autonomy, NCFTE 2009 asserted that teachers should play an active role in designing textbook content and curriculum to improve the learning outcomes of the students. NCFTE 2009 talks about teacher autonomy in the form of preparing teacher education programs to inculcate responsibility towards student learning. To ensure that the framework that is the result of planned efforts is put into practice, the NCFTE 2009 outlined certain implementation strategies. First, to generate awareness and initiation, the document is uploaded on an official NCFTE website. Second, institutions in India that have a stake in teacher education are given access to the document. Third, the framework is circulated amongst deans of all education universities in the country and directors of the SCERTs and other bodies connected with teacher education. Through workshops, the institutions are encouraged to revise their own existing teacher education programs in the light of the framework. Fourth, teacher education institutions are encouraged to have a four–five years program after completion of 12 years of schooling or a two years program after graduation. Fifth, regional workshops conducted at various states in the country with academic support from NCFTE to revisit their teacher education programs and treat teaching as a profession. And, to prevent unrecognized teacher education programs, a national dialogue will be initiated to bring all teacher education programs or institutions under recognized Universities (NCTE, 2009).

Conceptual Framework Alignment NCFTE 2009 fits with the overall conceptual framework explained in Chapter 3 slightly differently than NCF 2005 did. Specifically, to what degree does NCFTE 2009 align with the de-facto education–economy link? Is it scripted to fit with broader legitimacy-seeking goals for the nation or education system as a whole? And, is there decoupled implementation of NCFTE 2009 as there was with NCF 2005?

136 Education Policies for Teacher Quality De Facto Education–Economy Link in NCFTE 2009 Immediately on page 1 of NCFTE 2009, in the introduction to the document itself, international legitimacy of education in India is established as a primary goal for reforming teacher education. Two major developments in the recent years form the background to the present reform in teacher education – the political recognition of Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE) as a legitimate demand and the state commitment towards UEE in the form of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. (NCFTE 2009, p.1) This reference to the Universalization of Elementary Education is an acknowledgement of the impact that Education for All (EFA) as well as the Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals (MDGs and SDGs, respectively) have had on educational change and development in India. The recognition of India’s efforts to align national educational goals with international declarations and universal standards development is referenced further in the section on “Assessment and Evaluation Studies” (p.39). There is a need to emphasise on the need to view assessment as an aspect of learning. Teachers must recognise the role evaluation plays in motivating children to learn. This is particularly crucial to achieve the goals of the right to education and to bring every child into the fold of quality education. The current system of evaluation as a means to select by failing is not consistent with the goal of universalizing education. (NCFTE 2009, p.39) This section also links national education policy and development in India to the broader global testing and accountability movement, and ties evaluation to the quality of education. This is almost a direct statement of the de facto link between education and the economy, which is part of the broader legitimacyseeking agenda of the Indian educational system. On the same page, NCFTE 2009 emphasizes the legitimacy of broader educational testing and evaluation to assess learner achievement at higher levels than classrooms. The scope of learner assessment and evaluation needs to be broadened to go beyond the limited context of syllabus-based achievement testing; achievement scores in a subject need to be linked with the child’s overall development; testing should cover higher level of learning objectives, not just information. The [National Curriculum Framework] proposes schoolbased evaluation as a long-term goal of examination reform. The fact that school-based evaluation is being called out in NCFTE 2009 suggests that global testing and accountability expectations, standards, and practices are also becoming more valid in the Indian context.

The Professionalization of Teaching

137

Despite the overt alignment with international declarations about education, universal standards for education, and an emphasis on testing and accountability for students and teachers, NCFTE 2009 does not as overtly emphasize the explicit role that education plays in economic development, stability, or growth. There is much mention of developing curriculum and teachers who are able to support students from diverse social, economic, political, and cultural backgrounds, but none that specifically state the education–economy connection. Legitimacy-Seeking Script of NCFTE 2009 Legitimacy is often difficult to empirically observe, and perhaps even more daunting is measuring legitimacy-seeking in a national policy document like NCFTE 2009. But, as discussed in Chapter 5, there are roughly three indicators of legitimacy-seeking, which include (1) the intensive or frequency of legitimization (or delegitimization) claims; (2) the evaluative tone of communication through or related to a national policy document; and (3) the strength of communicated messages in relation to existing contextualized attitudes (Druckman, 2001; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Zaller, 1992). As the evidence presented earlier in this chapter suggests, NCFTE 2009 communicates intense legitimization claims (see the previous section), is uniquely evaluative in its positive messages about the value of educational testing and accountability, especially in relation to national education quality, and builds these messages of legitimacy out from a foundation in NCF 2005 as well as more broadly expressed critiques of education in India (Basheer, 2014). The legitimization claims in NCFTE 2009 are strong and frequent, especially in the introduction to this policy document where those voices are expected to be heard most frequently and loudly. In particular, the emphasis on the attainment of UEE in India suggests that the whole NCFTE 2009 document is scripted to respond to that national (and international) goal. NCFTE 2009, however, aligns legitimization messages with both international legitimacy and national contextualization. The frequent references in NCFTE 2009 back to the NCF 2005 create a consistently aligned approach to legitimization in the 2009 document, which NCF 2005 along did not have. A further legitimization effort is that NCFTE 2009 seeks to establish teacher evaluation as a core component of educational reform in India. The shift towards making testing and accountability not only a student-focused change effort, but one that encompasses teachers suggests that India is aligned with the most rigorous international standards about teacher quality, even if those standards are not being implemented in India (Azam & Kingdon, 2015). For example, on page 59 of NCFTE 2009, the delegitimization of India’s teacher evaluation practices was stated as follows: A glaring weakness of existing teacher education practices is the restricted scope of evaluation of student teachers and its excessively quantitative nature. It is confined to measurement of mainly cognitive learning through

138 Education Policies for Teacher Quality annual/terminal tests; skill measurement is limited to a specified number of lessons. The qualitative dimensions of teacher education, other professional capacities, attitudes and values remain outside the purview of evaluation. Further, evaluation is not continuous as it should be; the teacher education process is characterized by a wide range and variety of curricular inputs spread over the entire duration of training according to a thought out sequence. These need to be evaluated at appropriate stages and feedback given to the trainees. As mentioned earlier, the intensity of delegitimization claims can have a legitimizing effect because it signals that the misalignment of Indian education policy, especially related to teachers, is both recognized and being acted on. The implicit claim, then, is that by recognizing and forcefully pointing out shortcomings in previous policies and their implementation, the new policies (i.e., NCFTE 2009) will correct these identified issues and move forward in a way that aligns with the values and activities that are legitimized. In this case, the values to be acted upon are provide more qualitatively substantive evaluation and feedback to student teachers in India. The implication is also that this teacher evaluation will be continuous and diversely measured as part of a broader strategic reform effort. Of course, the appositional approach to achieving legitimacy in the NCFTE 2009 suggests that it is perhaps more symbolic than applied, especially since the implementation guidelines may not fully provide for infrastructure, capacity, or sustainability. Knowing that the evaluative tone of NCFTE 2009 is to delegitimize the Indian approach to teacher education, training, and evaluation and replace it with approaches aligned to international standards suggests that NCFTE 2009 is scripted to reflect both legitimacy-seeking in the global community of social, political, and economic national peers (or aspirational peers), and in the localized Indian national community, too. The strength of communicate messages about teacher education and educational reform is presented in NCFTE 2009 in relation to existing contextualized attitudes. For example, in Chapter 4 of NCFTE 2009 (p. 63) an effort is made to situate initiatives to support and provide professional development for in-service teachers through already established Indian educational services, such as District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) in local districts, SCERTs in Indian states, and Block and Cluster Resource Centres, which were created across India more broadly. By providing these contextualized examples of how India already provides resources to support the training and evaluation of teachers, NCFTE 2009 is providing a script for building education in India through previously approved (and funded) programs and resources. Decoupled Implementation Process of NCFTE 2009 Every national education policy cycle culminates in the implementation phase. This is true as well for national frameworks such as NCFTE 2009. The final

The Professionalization of Teaching

139

section of this national teacher education reform document focused on implementation strategies through advocacy, curriculum development, special teacher education areas, professional orientation and training programs, development of teacher educators, and further research. Of course, implementation of teacher quality reforms relies on the provision of infrastructure, the strategic planning of capacity-building, and the sustainability of the change or reform through the early involvement of targeted stakeholders. Unfortunately, NCFTE 2009 like other national Indian education policies, falls short in all three areas leading to a decoupling of the framework from real world implementation and practice. The most significant decoupling of NCFTE 2009 from its practical implementation is in the area of infrastructure. In short, there are no identified facilities, resources, or other infrastructure elements in the published plan. In fact, most of the implementation strategies seems to revolve around further discussion of what is needed. It should be noted that this is not a negative next step, but discussion is not the same as implementation and any infrastructure, facilities, or resources dedicated for further discussion or research are not able to address the real changes called for in the teacher preparation and professional development processes. In particular, a key point made throughout NCFTE 2009 had to do with the lack of evaluation of student teachers and inservice teachers, and Chapter 6 of this document which focuses on implementation ignores the evaluation component completely. Excluding evaluation of teachers from the implementation strategy overall is perhaps an oversight, but a glaring one since much of the legitimacy signaled in the previous chapters of NCFTE 2009 used teacher evaluation (and the lack of evaluation teachers received in India during the era in which this framework was written). Capacity building is another area of implementation coupling that could have brought NCFTE 2009 to life in the national, state, and local education systems throughout India. The second major implementation strategy category described on pages 90–91 in NCFTE 2009 is curriculum development. Since capacity is comprised of knowledge and skill, the development of teacher training and professional development curriculum could play a key role in this process. But, again, this implementation had more to do with forming “working groups” (p. 90), “commissioning eminent scholars” (p. 91), calling on individual states to create regional language versions of teacher preparation materials (p. 91), and vaguely calling on DIETs to revise their teacher education model (but without a specific plan for how to do so) (p. 91). In other words, there is no operationalizable strategy for building the knowledge and skills of Indian teachers at any stage of their career (either pre-service or inservice) nor is there a strategy for how to build the knowledge and skills of those who would train teachers. It literally does not exist in NCFTE 2009. Finally, the sustainability of NCFTE 2009 both to get it implemented and then ensure that the important and meaningful reforms it calls for are consistently implemented over time requires the involvement of targeted stakeholders from the beginning. This means that teachers, teacher educators,

140 Education Policies for Teacher Quality representatives from teacher preparation institutions, and others would need to be part of the planning, implementation, and accountability phases for all NCFTE 2009 activities. Like NCF 2005 before it, NCFTE 2009 was developed by an expert committee, but did not bring the voice of the broader education community into the framework itself, nor as part of the implementation strategy overall. Page v of the introduction to NCFTE 2009 says that it was developed, based on the ideas generated in a series of intensive deliberations by the members of the committee and eminent scholars, teacher educators, teachers, trainee teachers, representatives of NGOs, faculty of RIEs of NCERT, SCERTs, DIETs, IASEs, CTEs, university departments of education, and state departments of education at the two national consultative meets held at Udaipur and Hyderabad. It is also stated that the NCFTE 2009 draft document was posted online for feedback, and that many experts, practitioners, and institutions did so. But, there is little to suggest that any of the teachers, teacher educators, trainee teachers, or members of the public providing feedback were part of the process in a more empowered or leadership role. The expert committee comprised of professors and national level policymakers and scholars seem to be the ones driving NCTE 2009, which means that when it comes to implementation, the process is a top-down, hierarchical one, and a voluntary (i.e., unfunded) process as well. NCFTE 2009 is not even an unfunded mandate, it is simply a framework for improvement. And, as a result, it is has had lackluster implementation (Narayanan, 2020). Questioning the Impact of Teacher Quality Reform Through NCFTE 2009 The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (i.e., NCFTE 2009) is a strong and important document in Indian education. It highlights failures in the teacher preparation and professional development system, but also makes meaningful suggestions for how to correct previous errors and move forward to build a strong, expert, caring, and thriving teacher community in India. It is aligned with the best practices and global legitimized ideas for creating and sustaining high quality teachers. And, it is scripted in a way to build legitimacy for all of the suggestions and recommendations it makes. But, ultimately it is an unfulfilled promise to India’s educational community and more importantly to India’s children. As with NCF 2005, the question is not one of how NCFTE 2009 failed because as a framework it did not fail; in fact, it succeeded. The failure is one of implementation. This is seen through the complete decoupling of the policy framework itself and any sort of implementation through the development of infrastructure, capacity, or a sustainable network of champions and leaders to guide its implementation. No standards for implementation were

The Professionalization of Teaching

141

created for NCFTE 2009. Since there were no standards for implementation, there could not be any actual strategy for implementation itself. There were no plans for a strategic rollout of NCFTE 2009’s recommendations either. Instead, like NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009 served and still serves as a vision statement. Yet again, India’s mission of reviving its national education system through the development of teacher quality was a failure, but NCFTE 2009 did further build an internationally legitimized and rigorous vision for what teacher quality could be in India. And, if the national goal for NCFTE 2009 was actually more symbolic than practical, it can be unquestionably confirmed that it was a complete success – just not an implemented or sustainable success.

References Abbott, A. (1988) The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Akiba, M. (Ed.). (2013). Teacher reforms around the world: Implementations and outcomes. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Azam, M., & Kingdon, G. G. (2015). Assessing teacher quality in India. Journal of Development Economics, 117, 74–83. Baily, S. (2012), Framing the World Bank Education Strategy 2020 to the Indian context: Alignments, challenges, and opportunities. In Collins, C.S. and Wiseman, A.W. (Ed.) Education strategy in the developing world: Revising the World Bank’s education policy (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Vol. 16). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2012)0000016020. Bandyopadhyay, M., and Subrahmanian, R. (2008). Gender equity in education: A review of trends and factors. CREATE Pathways to Access Research Monograph No 18. Brighton, UK: Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE). Basheer, K. M. (2014). Teacher education in India: Innovative strategies to strengthen a critical analysis of NCFTE-2009. Shikshan Anveshika, 4(1), 15–19. DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W.W. (1991) The Iron Cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. In W.W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 63–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066. Dyer, C. (2005). Decentralisation to improve teacher quality? District Institutes of Education and Training in India. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35(2), 139–152. Friere, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Ginsburg, M., Chaturvedi, V., Agrawal, M., & Nora, A. (1988). Teachers and the ideology of professionalism in India and England: A comparison of case studies in colonial/peripheral and metropolitan/central societies. Comparative Education Review, 32(4), 465–477. Hammerness, K. and Klette, K. (2015). Indicators of Quality in Teacher Education: Looking at Features of Teacher Education from an International Perspective. In G. K. LeTendre & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teacher Workforce (pp. 239–277) (International Perspectives on Education and

142 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Society, Vol. 27). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/S1479367920140000027013. Hanushek, E. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 466–479. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. Kumar, K. (2005). Quality of education at the beginning of the 21st century: Lessons from India. Indian Educational Review, 40(1), 3–28. Larson, M.S. (1977) The Rise of Professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2015). Introduction: The Challenges of Teacher Effectiveness and Quality Worldwide. In G. K. LeTendre & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teacher Workforce (pp. 1–38) (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Vol. 27). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/S1479-367920140000027001. Mondal, A., Saha, A., & Baidya, M. N. (2015). National curriculum framework for teacher education, 2009: A review of its perspectives and relevance. International Journal of Applied Research, 1(9), 776–778. Narayanan, N. (2020). Improving Indian teachers’ readiness to adopt new methodologies: Role of learner-centered in-service training. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development (IJTEPD), 3(1), 102–120. NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education). (2009). National curriculum framework for teacher education. New Delhi, India: Author. Retrieved from http://www. ncte-india.org/ncte_new/pdf/NCFTE_2010.pdf. NCTE (National Council for Teacher Education). (2010). National education framework for teacher education. New Delhi, India: Author. Retrieved from http://www. ncte-india.org/ncte_new/pdf/NCFTE_2010.pdf. Ramachandran, V. (2003). Gender equality in education in India. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris, France: UNESCO. Ramachandran, V. (Ed.). (2004). Gender and social equity in primary education: Hierarchies of access. New Delhi, India: SAGE. Rao, N. (2010). Aspiring for distinction: Gendered educational choices in an Indian village. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 40(2): 167–183. Rose, P., & Alcott, B. (2015). How can education systems become equitable by 2030. DFID think pieces–Learning and equity. (Accessed 12th Nov., 2016) Available from http://heart-resources.org. Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Gender equity education globally. In S. S. Klein et al. (Eds.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (2nd ed., pp. 33–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tallberg, J., & Zürn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations, 14, 581–606. UNESCO. (2003). EFA Global Monitoring Report: Rights within education. Paris, France: Author. Wiseman, A. W., & Matherly, C. (2009). The professionalization of comparative and international education: Promises and problems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4), 334–355. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

7

Restoring Credibility Through Teacher Quality Teacher Quality Discourse in Draft NEP 2016 and 2019

India has always given importance to education. Since the formulation of the 1986 National Policy on Education (NPE), significant changes have taken place in the country, which have increasingly established the value India places on education. In the education sector in India, since NPE 1986, major educational developments include the establishment of constitutional and legal underpinnings for achieving Universal Elementary Education (UEE). Examples of these underpinnings include the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act of 2002 and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009 (i.e., RTE 2009). Significant developments have also occurred through changes in pedagogy and teaching activities. India’s educational system has seen an increase in the use of educational learning activities that are no longer confined to the classroom (Gafoor & Narayan, 2012; Viswanathan & Blom, 2010), use of ICTs that brings increased access to learning opportunities and new information (Agariya & Singh, 2012; Behera, 2013), and efforts to increase the equality and equity of education (Bhatty, 2014; Shah, 2012), although these efforts in the early 21st century were inconsistently implemented and yielded inconclusive results in India (Velaskar, 2010). In other words, the quality of education in India continues to be a challenge and wide variation continues to exist in the quality of education both within and across the states of India (Majumdar & Mooij, 2011). Learning outcomes and teacher quality continued to be major concerns since the NPE 1986, in spite of new national education policies reflected in NCF 2005 and NCFTE 2009. Just one decade into the 21st century there persisted a need for a policy that provided a robust framework to improve education in India, which would also reflect India’s transforming role in the international economic, political, and educational communities. Indian politicians and policymakers were focused on developing a policy that would that bring education to a level that would help amalgamate globalization with localization, enabling India’s children and youth to become global citizens, with their roots deeply embedded in Indian culture and traditions (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 1). Although appearing only three years apart, the Draft National Education Policy 2016 (Draft NEP 2016) and the Draft National Education Policy 2019

144 Education Policies for Teacher Quality (Draft NEP 2019) both approach the process of reforming Indian education in unique, yet intersecting ways. Both the Draft policies NPE 2016 and NPE 2019 were crafted with a vision for a robust policy to revamp the education sector in the country in order to provide high quality education to all that would transform the nation. While the Draft NPE 2016 focused on bringing in a policy that would take into account the changes and developments in India and globally, NPE 2019 further brought in the urgent need for increased financing and strategic implementation of reform in the education sector. To do so, the Draft NPE 2019 took into account a wide range of suggestions and reports from various committees and the Draft NPE 2016 (GoI MHRD, 2019). Yet, both of these policies were draft frameworks rather than ratified policy statements. This means that they were both highly visible, public-facing, and nationally orienting documents for educational reform, but that they were neither completely formalized nor implementable. In considering the overall national education policy cycle in India for both the Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019, the phases of establishing a de facto education–economy link, scripting legitimized Indian education policies, and then implementing teacher quality reforms through an often decoupled process focused more heavily on the first two phases and less on the third. While the Draft NEP 2016 was never finalized or implemented by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), a new committee was constituted by the MHRD headed by Dr. K. Kasturirangan along with eight other members that led to the Draft NPE 2019. This chapter, therefore, looks at both draft national education policies sideby-side. First the content and direction of each is summarized below. Then the content is analyzed in relation to traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators. Finally, each policy is examined in terms of its alignment with the Indian national education policy cycle.

Draft of the National Education Policy 2016 Some Inputs for Draft National Education Policy 2016 was formulated nearly three decades following the landmark national policy of education, NPE 1986. Recommendations for the draft were given by a high-status committee chaired by former Union cabinet secretary T. S. R. Subramanian. The Draft NEP 2016, which was a guiding document of the policies of the Central Government, critically recognized the importance of quality education for the social, economic, and political growth of the country. To this effect, it stated, “[A]n education system built on the premises of quality and equity is central to the sustainable success in the emerging knowledge economy” (p. 1). The Draft NEP 2016 is a comprehensive education policy comprised of nine chapters, which include school education at every level, college education, research work, vocational education and training, pre-school education, education of children with special needs, education of tribal children, language policies,

Restoring Credibility

145

sports and physical education, curriculum renewal and examination reforms, adult education, and higher education. The five main areas of intervention of the draft policy are: (1) access and participation, (2) quality of education, (3) curriculum and examination reforms, (4) teacher development and management and (5) skill development and employability. Through these key interventions, Draft NEP 2016 provides a framework for the development of the education sector in the country. The Draft NEP 2016 acknowledges itself as a policy that is a continuation of the objectives of earlier policies, namely NPE 1968 and NPE 1986/92. As such, Draft NEP 2016 highlights the main contributions of these two prior policies and also documents a number of significant legislative and executive steps that were undertaken during the prior two decades like the (Right to Education) RTE ACT 2009, the (Sarva Shiskha Abhiyan) SSA 2001, (Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan) RMSA 2009 and others. The draft policy asserts its own necessity because the vision of earlier policies was never fulfilled, so there is an immediate need to provide a framework for implementation. In tune with the earlier NPE 1968 and NPE 1986/92, the Draft NEP 2016 made an urgent recommendation to hike the budget on education from 3.5% to 6% of the GDP. The Draft policy argues that for improvement in teacher training, teacher recruitment, school management, access to quality education and improvement of pedagogic techniques, the government has to increase the budget on education (Suhag, 2016). Similar to the earlier NPE 1986, the Draft NEP 2016 continues to recognize the critical role that education plays in the socio-economic growth and political transformation of India. It clearly articulates and further highlights education as a key catalyst in the “amalgamation of globalization with localization” (p. 1), wherein the youth become global citizens while maintaining their Indian traditions and culture. However, unlike earlier policies that emphasized the promotion of democracy and national integration as key goals of education, the Draft NEP 2016 policy, emphasizes entrepreneurship, increasing employability, and developing skills. The Draft NEP 2016 maintains that despite progress in accessibility to education, improved infrastructure, and growth in the literacy rate in the previous three decades, there is still much to be desired when it comes to equity and quality of Indian education. The Draft NEP 2016 categorically stated the importance of teachers for quality education and asserted that teachers are the “fulcrum around which the education system revolves” (p. 65). It reports that despite earlier policies and strategies to improve teacher quality in the country, India continues to face many teacher related issues impacting teacher quality and education quality. Persistent issues like teacher absenteeism, teacher vacancies, teacher transfers, lack of quality leadership, and poor teacher education and training hamper quality of education especially in the government schools. It was also noted by Draft NEP 2016 that to meet the increasing demand for teachers there was an unregulated increase in private universities and institutions

146 Education Policies for Teacher Quality providing teacher education across the country. These ‘teaching shops’, which operated like a business under the control of influential people who had no interest or idea about education, generated very poor-quality teaching professionals who were not fit to match the changing demands of the Indian education system. Therefore, to prevent the proliferation of such unrecognized institutions, the Draft NEP 2016 policy recommends the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), as a national regulatory agency, at least in the short term. The teaching profession, which in ancient India was considered a noble profession, no longer holds that status in the country. Students with better scores at both the high school and graduate levels opt for other professions (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 67), which results in lower quality students joining the teaching profession. To ensure motivated, competent and talented students enter the teaching profession, the Draft NEP 2016 policy recommends incentives like fully funded teacher education for top performers (GoI MHRD, 2016). In addition, teacher absenteeism is high because teachers are made to perform administrative work during elections, which keeps them away from classrooms for a lengthy period of time. The Draft NEP 2016 policy strongly condemns this stating that teachers should do what they are meant to do: teach (p. 38). Also, there is a shortage of teachers in the country. For classes 9–12, the RSMA has prescribed a teacher pupil ratio of 1:30 for effective learning. However, most states in the country have a higher ratio. For example, states like Bihar have a ratio of 1:57 and Jharkhand a ratio of 1:65 (Suhag, 2016). In addition, Draft NEP 2016 asserts that teacher training and teacher education institutes in the country are of low quality. The committee while preparing the draft found that the one-year B.Ed. program did not equip teachers with any skills or knowledge. In fact, the NCTE only prescribed a compulsory two-year B.Ed. course in 2014. Draft NEP 2016 also stated that Indian teachers lack adequate subject knowledge and the required teaching skills resulting in poor student learning outcomes. Therefore, one of the aims of the draft of Draft NEP 2016 was to provide a framework to improve the quality of teaching. To this effect Draft NEP 2016 states, “without good teachers, there can be no quality education” (GoI MHRD, 2016, p. 4). The Draft NEP 2016 policy makes certain provisions regarding teacher education. There are a few chapters that specifically highlight teachers and teacher education. Chapter V recommends the use of ICT as a teaching aid for teachers and also as a way to connect teachers globally. In this way, it is suggested that teachers would able to learn new skills and knowledge and thus improve the overall quality of education. In Chapter VI, there is some discussion about teacher management that includes teacher education, teacher training, and professional development. The NCERT recommendation for higher research in teacher education is given in Chapters VIII. Chapter IX includes a summary of recommendations focused on teacher management, teacher education, deployment, and professional development.

Restoring Credibility

147

Draft of the National Policy of Education 2019 Within two years of the formulation of the Draft NEP 2016, the Draft National Education Policy (NEP) 2019 was initiated in 2018 by the Minister of Human Resource Development (HRD), Shri Prakash Javadekar. The charge for the Draft NEP 2019 was to examine all the input suggestions given by the Draft NEP 2016, and thereby submit a new national policy of education. The HRD Minister justified a need for a new policy by stating, “to meet the changing dynamics of the population’s requirements with regards to quality education, innovation, and research…[a new policy needs to be drafted]” (p. 1). The Draft NEP 2019 was formulated by a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. K. Kasturirangan, the former chief of ISRO, on the guiding principles of access, equity, quality, affordability and accountability (GoI MHRD, 2019). The Draft NEP 2019 policy was very clear in its vision, which was stated as follows (p. 40): The National Education Policy envisions an India-centered education system that contributes directly to transforming our nation sustainably into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society by providing high quality education to all. With this vision in mind, the Draft document was presented to the HRD Minister in December 2018. The Draft NEP 2019 was an organized 484-page document with sections clearly demarcated for teachers and teacher education both for schools and for higher education. The Draft NEP 2019 is divided into four parts that include 24 chapters. Part 1 is dedicated to “School Education” and includes eight chapters out of which Chapter 5 is on teachers and includes content on teacher education and continuous professional development. Part 2 of the Draft document is on “Higher Education” and also has a section dedicated to teacher education for colleges and universities. Part 3 is on “Additional Key Focus Areas” and lastly, Part 4 is on “Transforming Education”. The committee initially planned to make a few changes and implement the recommendations routed by the Draft Policy Draft NEP 2016. However, the diverse members of the committee all associated with education either as faculty or as members of the Ministry of HRD brought in “ rich and unique insights about our society and their implications for education…fresh and new ideas to create a policy”, and therefore they all worked on creating a new education system for India that was aligned with the aspirational goals of “21st century education”, while still remaining consistent with the country’s traditions and value systems (p. 23). A key vision of the Draft NEP 2019 was to bring change to the Indian education system in a way that “touches the life of each and every citizen, consistent with their ability to contribute to many growing developmental imperatives of this country” (p. 24). The Draft NEP 2019 reported that the unfinished agenda of NPE 1986/92 was adequately dealt with in the Draft NEP 2019 (p. 23). So, to a large extent the Draft

148 Education Policies for Teacher Quality policy was a culmination of policy initiatives of NPE1986/92 that were not implemented, included a few inputs from Draft NEP 2016, and presented fresh recommendations to bring the required changes in the education system. The Draft NEP 2019 is in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) developed by the United Nations, World Bank, and other stakeholders participating in the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in 2012. To achieve SDG 4 (i.e., quality education) in India, Draft NEP 2019 recommends an urgent increase in funding for the education sector. Specifically, the Draft NEP 2019 stated, “although it may sound repetitive, we must find the funding that education needs, and find it quickly” (p. 33). Post NPE 1986/92, the world had seen an internet revolution, and India had been slow in using technology to improve the quality of education within the country. The Draft NEP 2019 states that globalization demands the youth of our country be lifelong learners raised in a technologyrich environment and have educational opportunities to engage in purposeful learning provided by competent teachers. The Draft NEP 2019 further asserts that youth should have knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that are in tune with India’s traditions and cultures to bring about a transformation of the country’s social, economic, and political environments. More directly, Draft NEP 2019 recognized that for India to be the third largest economy in the world by 2030, the entire education system would have to be revamped to support learning through a sound curriculum, competent and quality teachers, appropriate resources and funds, strong school leadership, and sound policies (p. 28). Thus, the Draft NEP 2019 provided a framework: For the transformation and reinvigoration of the education system in order to respond to the requirements of fast-changing, knowledge-based societies while taking into account the diversity of the Indian people, their traditions, cultures, and languages. [Draft NEP 2019] seeks to ensure that human capital, the most vital form of capital that would fuel the necessary transformation, is secured and strengthened. (p. 27) The importance of teachers to student learning and India’s development is repeatedly reinforced in the Draft NEP 2019, which states its objective in revamping teacher education to “ensure that all students at all levels of school education are taught by passionate, motivated, highly qualified, professionally trained, and well equipped teachers” (p. 113). It highlights the status of teachers and the teaching profession in the 21st century as compared to ancient India. Earlier, teachers were highly respected, and teaching was a sought-after profession where only the “best” and “learned” became teachers (p. 113). In comparison, in the 21st century, the quality and status of the teaching profession has seriously dropped, and teachers neither have the skills, knowledge, nor motivation to teach.

Restoring Credibility

149

The Draft NEP 2019 did not define teacher quality, but listed out teacher quality characteristics of teacher attitude, teacher qualification, teacher professional development, teacher autonomy, and teacher salary that the Draft says make outstanding teachers and teaching. To make changes in teacher quality in India, the committee that got together to formulate the Draft policy, realized that a complete overhaul of the teaching profession was required. Based on data collected from individuals, organizations, and institution’s inputs, plus goals envisioned for the teaching profession, the committee chose seven key areas to reform teacher quality in the country. The areas of teacher education, recruitment, deployment, service conditions, professional development, and career management were listed as those that needed immediate attention. Furthermore, to ensure that quality students enter the teaching profession, the Draft NEP 2019 recommended merit scholarships for deserving candidates for the four-year, full-time B.Ed. programs. In addition, it also recommended guaranteed employment for students, especially females from rural areas, who successfully complete the fouryear integrated B.Ed. program in their local areas, to avoid burdening them with additional costs of travel. To ensure only bright candidates become future teachers, the Draft policy recommended Teacher Entrance Tests (TETs) be strengthened and teacher interviews be an integral part of teacher recruitment (GoI MHRD, 2019). Next, the Draft policy asked for immediate closure of substandard TELs that were hampering the integrity and quality of teacher education. And, finally the Draft policy recommended housing facilities for teachers who were deployed to rural areas as well as a halt to the practice of excessive teacher transfers. The Draft NEP 2019 asserted that for the young generation to be lucrative and lifelong learners, they would need to be prepared for a digital technology revolution that would bring in new jobs that did not exist yet. To sustain and grow in such an environment, the Indian education system would need to be transformed. One of the key highlights in the Draft policy in respect to school education is the proposed restructuring from the current 10 + 2 years system to a 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 system, which would include five years of the Foundational stage (three years of pre-primary and grades 1 and 2), three years of Preparatory or Later Primary (Grades 3, 4, and 5), three years of Middle or Upper Primary (Grades 6, 7, and 8), and four years of the High or Secondary stage (Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12) (p. 75). The Draft policy justified the restructuring of the school system on the basis of cognitive and scientific evidence showing that a child’s cognitive development starts at the age of 3 and that up to the age of 8 children learn best through play. The restructuring of the schools’ system based on a child’s emotional, physical, and cognitive developmental stages starting from 3 through 18 years of age, focused on the development of social skills, logical thinking, knowledge seeking from play, discovery-based learning, and activitybased learning. The Draft NEP 2019 recommended that the method of rote learning that dominated Indian education should be replaced. Not surprisingly,

150 Education Policies for Teacher Quality the transformation of the school system would require changes in teacher pedagogy and qualities.

Draft NEP 2016 Content Analysis Using content analysis, a qualitative research methodology described in Chapter 5, 10% of the relevant pages (22 pages) from the Draft NEP 2016 document were coded. Relevant pages are those pages from the document that contain one or more of the selected keywords (see Tables 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 Tables of contents, introductions, epilogues, summaries, and any figures and diagrams were excluded. The document was manually scanned for the identified keywords as listed in Chapter 5. Qualitative Results for Draft NEP 2016 Data frequency matrices that show the percentage of sentences coded in each category in relation to the total number of sentences, including those marked as “Irrelevant” to the study were used to compile the results to answer the research questions. Table 7.3 shows the number and percentage of coded sentences pertaining to each traditional teacher quality indicator. For Draft NEP 2016, there were 1,555 sentences, out of which 1,433 sentences (92%) were irrelevant to the study. From the relevant sentences, 40 sentences (3%) coded for teacher Table 7.1 Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding Title

Year

Total Pages

Relevant Pages

Pilot Coded Pages

Final Coding Pages

Draft NEP

2016

217

217

22

217

Table 7.2 Data Frequency Table for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in Draft NEP 2016 Teacher Qualification

Teacher Certification

Professional Development

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

Draft NEP 2016

40

3

1

0

16

1

1433

92

1555

100

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

Restoring Credibility

151

Table 7.3 Data Frequency Table for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators including Teacher Accountability in Draft NEP 2016 Teacher Salary/ Performance Pay

Teacher Absenteeism

Teacher Qualified in Mathematics

Teacher Attitude

Teacher Account Ability

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

Draft NEP 2016

8

1

38

3

4

1

8

1

7

1

1433 92

%

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

qualification, one sentence (0%) coded for teacher certification, and 16 sentences (1%) coded for professional development. Table 7.3 shows the number and percentage of coded sentences pertaining to each non-traditional teacher quality indicator. For Draft NEP 2016, there were 1,555 total sentences in the document, out of which 1,433 (92%) were irrelevant to the studies. From the relevant material in Draft NEP 2016 (122 sentences), eight sentences (1%) coded for teacher salary/performance pay, 38 sentences (3%) coded for teacher absenteeism, four sentences (1%) coded for teacher qualified in mathematics, eight sentences (2%) coded for teacher attitude, and seven sentences (3%) coded for teacher accountability. The following sections discuss what the Draft NEP 2016 policy document states with respect to each traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicator.

Teacher Quality Discourse in Draft NEP 2016 The committee that drafted Draft NEP 2016 explicitly asserted that India’s poor education system was the result of low teacher quality. Draft NEP 2016 observed that the main challenges for the new policy with regard to teacher quality were a lack of competent and committed teachers and substandard quality of teacher education and training (p. 170). Therefore, to understand the recommendations of the policy on teacher quality in the country, the discourse on the various teacher quality attributes as stated in the draft policy are discussed in respect to traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators, respectively. Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Teacher Qualification Focusing on the importance of quality teachers in school education, the Draft NEP 2016 states its mission is to “foster quality education with a strong

152 Education Policies for Teacher Quality focus on…teacher quality and performance” (p. 14). Similar to the NCFTE 2009, Draft NEP 2016 blames the poor quality of education in the country on poor teacher quality resulting from inadequate teacher education and training. It is evident that the policy is overtly recommending that teacher education be strengthened as it states that “it will be mandatory for all teacher institutions such as DIETs to be accredited and benchmarking standards will be set up for block resource centers” (p. 29). The Draft NEP 2016 policy asserts that the education system in India paid a heavy price for neglecting teacher education and training. Therefore, placing strong emphasis on teacher education, Draft NEP 2016 recommended following the NCFTE 2009 benchmark of a four-year integrated Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Education and further proposed the possibility of a five-year integrated program after tenth grade for elementary school teachers and after twelfth grade for secondary school teachers. Additionally, the draft policy recommended an advanced one-year diploma course for secondary school teachers to teach higher secondary classes. The policy strongly advocated making the four-year integrated course mandatory in all states. The expectation was that such a policy would give the students the chance to be sure of their choice of the teaching profession and, thereby, increase content knowledge and teacher quality. Furthermore, the Draft NEP 2016 policy recommended that the entry to the B.Ed. degree should have a benchmark minimum requirement of marks of 50% or greater at graduation. Draft NEP 2016 addressed teacher quality within the context of the significant changes that are in the current education system. Draft NEP 2016 recognized that teaching was no longer confined to the classroom only, and students have access to new knowledge. The authors of Draft NEP 2016 wanted to “guide the new renewal process in India” (p. 5). Thus, to equip teachers to efficiently carry out their duties, Draft NEP 2016 proposed mandatory teacher training that included a 4-year integrated teacher education program. The program was slated to include research, innovation, and experimentation. To ensure that qualified and competent teachers are employed in schools, the policy advised Indian states to have separate teacher recruitment boards, which would be approved by the Central Government. With respect to the teacher education curriculum for pre-service teachers, Draft NEP 2016 advised integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as part of the teacher education curriculum to enhance teaching quality. Discussing the need to prepare teachers to handle the dynamic demands of education, the Draft NEP 2016 stated that the “role of teachers will be redefined to promote adoption of a blended model of pedagogy with a combination of self-learning, practical and collaborative learning components” (p. 39). Additionally, the Draft NEP 2016 recommended linking teaching to research to enhance teacher quality in the country.

Restoring Credibility

153

Teacher Qualification in Mathematics Draft NEP 2016 recognized the importance of subject-matter competency and, though not elaborating much, stated that “[t]he four-year integrated B.Ed. course will be strong in subject content” (p. 179). Teacher Certification Draft NEP 2016 recommended teacher certification or licensing once every ten years for both government and private schools to keep abreast of new additions in teacher education and also to “ensure continuing minimal standards in teacher performance” (p. 68). Professional Development Recognizing the importance of in-service training for teachers, the Draft NEP 2016 proposed the use of information technology to train teachers and keep them abreast of teaching strategies and techniques from around the world. Further, Draft NEP 2016 called for “mandatory in-service training for all teachers once in every three years” (p. 30), revealing that it affirmed earlier policies requiring professional development to improve teacher quality. The policy suggested that current teachers in government schools who are working towards getting their B.Ed. degree should be provided regular in-service training to improve the quality of teaching. For hilly, tribal, or inaccessible areas, the Draft NEP 2016 policy recommended alternative models for preservice training. For example, it was suggested that DIETS could run five-year courses or training for young girls after class eight with financial support and job assurance, which would also reduce teacher shortages in such areas. Additionally, the authors of the policy suggested that, although the number of SCERTs and DIETs that provide professional training to teachers was increasing, there was a lack of adequately qualified and trained teacher trainers. The Draft NEP 2016 policy, therefore, advocated that teacher trainers should have the same qualifications as college lecturers (doctoral degree) and be paid on a similar pay scale. The Draft policy further recommended the use of B.Ed. colleges and university departments for the in-service training of teachers. Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Teacher Salary/Performance Pay The Draft NEP 2016 remarked that in many states in the country, a system of correlation between teacher monetary incentives and performance was lacking, which demotivates the teacher thus affecting school education. Therefore, the Draft NEP 2016 called for “effective monitoring of teacher performance, with

154 Education Policies for Teacher Quality built-in incentive systems like extra-increments, recognition awards, based on teacher performance” (p. 41). Teacher Absenteeism The Draft NEP 2016 advocated appropriate mechanisms to prevent teachers from being out of the class. It reported that teacher absenteeism was estimated at over 25% each day. To this effect the draft policy said: Teacher absenteeism…[has] destroyed the credibility of our school education system. These issues can be resolved only with strong political consensus; all efforts otherwise would be ineffective. The Committee therefore recommends formulation of a national agenda and commitment to address these issues. (p. 71) It is noted that during elections, many political parties use teachers to help with their administrative work, resulting in teachers not being in the class to teach. This impacts the quality of education and students’ learning outcomes. Draft NEP 2016, therefore, was used to prevent political interference in the teaching duties of teachers through appropriate management measures. Some states were noted as trying to control teacher absenteeism through bio-metric attendance recording, but the Draft NEP 2016 Committee noted that the situation in India was such that it needed a lot more attention and supervision (p. 133). Teacher Attitude Draft NEP 2016 specified that teachers should possess positive attitudes towards children and their learning, especially towards children with special needs. The policy specifically stated that teachers should actively involve children in their learning and play the role of facilitators and mentors. Teacher Accountability Draft NEP 2016 clearly articulated the need for teacher accountability for learning outcomes by stating: “Programmes for enhancing the capacity, motivation and accountability of teachers to deliver quality education and improvements in learning outcomes of students will be accorded priority” (p. 30). To ensure teacher accountability, the Draft NEP 2016 stated that “periodic assessment of teachers in government and private schools will be made mandatory and linked to their future promotions and increments” (p. 30). Furthermore, the draft policy recommended both State and Central governments join hands in setting norms and guidelines for teacher accountability. The draft policy recommended standards for learning

Restoring Credibility

155

outcomes to be set for each class and monitored through regular internal and periodic external evaluations where teachers would be held accountable, and their career progression would then be based on student’s academic performance. The Draft NEP 2016 also reinforced the need for better qualified and professionally trained teachers to make them accountable for student learning outcomes. The Draft NEP 2016 showed some continuity as well as certain changes from earlier policies, including NPE 1968 and NPE 1986/92. The earlier policies focused more on access and equity to education while the Draft NEP 2016 moved a step further and focused more on the quality of education in India. Improvement of teacher education and training had been a key education policy agenda item since NPE 1968, which focused more on the improvement of teacher in-service training and teacher compensation to improve teacher quality. But, NPE 1986/92 was a bit more comprehensive in respect to teacher quality. NPE 1986/92 recommended upgrading teacher training colleges and emphasized the inseparability of pre-service and in-service teachers. It also recommended establishing DIETs for teacher training and the NCTE to accredit teacher training institutions. However, persistent failures in implementing recommendations proposed by earlier policies have resulted in persistent and continuously low teacher quality in India. Although the Draft NEP2016 provided valuable recommendations to improve teacher quality in India, it was also heavily critiqued by the media and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for giving feeble responses to core issues in teacher quality. For example, Draft NEP 2016 did not sufficiently address core teacher quality issues like quality in-service and pre-service teacher education (Azim Premji Foundation, 2018, p. 20). The Draft NEP 2016 was never legalized as a national policy for reasons not officially disclosed. Some accuse the Draft NEP 2016 of favoring a fast pace of change to keep up with the demands of globalization, but assuming that India must flow with new global changes in education without any opportunity for Indian citizens to question those changes (Dhankar, 2016). Others openly accuse Draft NEP 2016 of being undemocratic and “an attempt to Hinduise and Saffronise Indian educational policy” (Sekher, 2016). The Draft NEP 2016 policy was also critiqued on the grounds that it provided educational targets or objectives rather than a clear framework on how to improve education quality in India. Nevertheless, the Draft NEP 2016 did make some recommendations that have been viewed favorably such as extending the RTE Act to secondary schools, protecting the rights of children and adolescents in respect to access and equity in education, and restructure the cadre pre-primary teachers and teacher educators to raise their grade pay. Specifically, it reinforced the importance of teachers in the education sector and also drew attention to the state of teacher quality in India and the urgent need to focus on it to improve Indian education quality and learning outcomes.

156 Education Policies for Teacher Quality

Teacher Quality Discourse in Draft NEP 2019 Additional discourse on the various teacher quality attributes as stated in the Draft policy is discussed under the two sub-sections: traditional and nontraditional teacher quality indicators. Draft NEP 2019 Analysis Using content analysis, a qualitative research methodology described in Chapter 5, 10% of the relevant pages (92 pages) from the Draft NEP 2019 document were coded. Relevant pages are those pages from the document that contain one or more of the selected keywords (see Table 7.4). Tables of contents, introductions, epilogues, summaries, and any figures and diagrams were excluded. Qualitative Results for the Draft NEP 2019 Data frequency tables (see Tables 7.5 and 7.6) that show the percentage of sentences coded in each category in relation to the total number of sentences, including those marked as “Irrelevant” to the study were used to compile the results to understand how NEP2019 framed the various teacher quality indicators. There were 1,654 sentences coded for traditional teacher quality indicators in Draft NEP 2019, out of which 959 sentences (58%) were irrelevant. From the relevant sentences, 346 sentences (21%) were coded for teacher qualificaTable 7.4 Pages Coded in Pilot Coding and Final Coding Title

Year

Total Pages

Relevant Pages

Pilot Coded Pages

Final Coding Pages

Draft NEP

2019

372

212

21

212

Table 7.5 Data Frequency Table for Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators in Draft NEP 2019 Teacher Qualification

Teacher Certification

Professional Development

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

Draft NEP 2019

346

21

0

0

224

14

959

58

1654

100

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

Restoring Credibility

157

Table 7.6 Data Frequency Table for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators including Teacher Accountability in Draft NEP 2019 Teacher Salary/ Performance Pay

Teacher Absenteeism

Teacher Qualified in Mathematics

Teacher Attitude

Teacher Account Ability

IrreleTotal Senvant tences in Sentences Document in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

Draft NEP 2019

51

3

6

1

60

3

2

1

6

1

959

92 1654 100

S

%

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

tion. There was no mention of teacher certification. And, 224 sentences (14%) were coded for professional development. For Draft NEP 2019, in respect to non-traditional teacher quality indicators, there were 1,654 total sentences coded in the document, out of which 959 (58%) were irrelevant to the study. From the relevant sentences (695 sentences), 51 sentences (3%) were coded for teacher salary/performance pay. Six sentences (1%) were coded for teacher absenteeism. 60 sentences (3%) were coded for teacher qualified in mathematics. Two sentences (1%) were coded for teacher attitude, and six sentences (1%) for teacher accountability. The following section discusses the teacher quality discourse in Draft NEP 2019 in respect to the selected traditional and non-traditional teacher quality indicators as determined from the coding.

Teacher Quality Discourse in Draft NEP 2019 Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Teacher Qualification Draft NEP 2019 gave heavy weight to teacher education in India. It compared the teaching profession to other professions like medicine and law where the lives of individuals are in the practitioner’s hands (p. 283). Draft NEP 2019 also asserted that the future of the next generation is shaped by teachers who, therefore, need the highest standards of education and training. Draft NEP 2019 pointed out that, unfortunately, in India, teacher education has been neglected for years, and the number of unrecognized private institutions rampant with corruption was on the rise. Most of these institutions were teacher training centers, and Draft NEP 2019 recognized that rather than imparting teacher education, they sell degrees for a price (p. 283). Therefore, the Draft NEP 2019 repeatedly recommended immediate action to ensure the closure of such

158 Education Policies for Teacher Quality institutions. Draft NEP 2019 advocated that strong political and legal approaches be developed to ensure incompetent and illegal teacher education institutions (TEIs) be shut down by 2023. This step, the Draft policy asserts, is a must if India is to restore the integrity and credibility of the teaching profession. Draft NEP 2019 also made a comprehensive plan for teacher education to ensure that “passionate, motivated, well-qualified, and holistically well-trained teachers” (p. 134) are employed throughout the schools in India. According to the plan, teacher education and training will equip teachers with the knowledge, pedagogy, skills, and practical training required to improve student learning outcomes. Draft NEP 2019 identifies the B.Ed. degree from “affiliated” universities as a compulsory educational qualification for all teachers. Most importantly, all colleges and universities in the country should gradually become multidisciplinary so that they may house outstanding education departments that offer both B.Ed. and M.Ed. degrees. Draft NEP 2019 stated that there are two B.Ed. options. The first B.Ed. degree option would be a four-year integrated degree with practicum training at local schools for students who have completed 10 + 2 years of schooling. For the practicum training, student teachers would be placed with a competent mentor. Initially, the student teachers would observe the mentor’s teaching skills and then independently teach the class, take remedial lessons, and also perform other teaching related tasks under the mentor’s supervision. The second B.Ed. degree option would be a two-year course offered by the same institutions offering the four year integrated B.Ed. degree, and it would be for those students who completed their bachelor’s degree in other specialised subjects. The Draft NEP 2019 reinforced the need for multidisciplinary universities and colleges in India to offer the teacher degree, which would include collaborative learning, educational technology, and a student teaching practicum to produce the best teachers possible. The policy plan for teacher education defined multidisciplinary institutions of higher learning as “those that offer undergraduate and graduate programmes, with high quality teaching, research, and service” (p. 211) and give equal importance to research and teaching. The Draft NEP 2019 recommended all existing teacher education institutions become multidisciplinary higher educational institutions by 2030 to bring about this desired change in the teaching profession. Additionally, the Draft NEP 2019 asserted that a multidisciplinary approach would provide teachers an opportunity to collaborate with peers from other disciplines as well as the opportunity of being taught by faculty from other disciplines like psychology, child development, and social sciences thus making them that much stronger as teachers when they graduate (GoI MHRD, 2019, p. 133). To train teachers in various streams, the Draft NEP 2019 recommended different tracks for the B.Ed. program that include streams for general education teachers, subject teachers for middle and secondary school as well as special education, art, vocational education, and physical education teachers. Reinforcing the importance of sound teacher preparation, the Draft NEP 2019 recommended that “curriculum and pedagogy in teacher education must

Restoring Credibility

159

provide for rigorous theoretical understanding of educational perspectives, subjects, and pedagogy, along with a strong theory-practice” (p. 286). Additionally, the Draft policy stated that a good education program should have faculty that are experts in early childhood education, subject area content, assessment, curriculum, psychology, and a knowledge of India and its values and traditions. This expertise would help prepare competent teachers and a sound teacher education program. For subjects other than STEM, Draft NEP 2019 proposed hiring a well-respected, local expert as a specialized instructor for music, art, language, literature, and business. Apart from supporting local crafts, this would also inspire students who had the opportunity to learn from an expert (GoI MHRD 2019, p. 135). To ensure the quality of students who are passionate about teaching, Draft NEP 2019 recommended providing variations in teacher education programs. Accordingly, the two-year B.Ed. program was recommended for professionals from different fields who want to enter the teaching profession at a later stage in their career. The program would also be offered at the same multidisciplinary institutions where the four-year B.Ed. program was offered. In addition to the degree programs and to also ensure that teachers are adequately qualified, the Draft NEP 2019 recommended that the teachers in training learn different strategies for accommodating socially, economically, and academically diverse students. Although the earlier policies and government schemes improved equity and access to education overall, data referred to in Draft NEP 2019 suggested that there were persistent biases and discrimination against underrepresented groups (URG) in the education sector. Therefore, apart from schemes to improve access and equity to education for URGs, Draft NEP 2019 stated that what was most required was a “change in school culture” (p. 140). In other words, the teacher education program should educate teachers to be sensitive to the requirements of all students. Draft NEP 2019 further recommended recruiting teachers from URGs to be role models for all students. Teacher Qualification in Mathematics For subject matter competency, the Draft policy recommended that additional short-term B.Ed. courses would also be made available to existing teachers who wanted to specialize in particular subjects. For those who had a master’s degree in a specialized subject and wanted to enter the teaching profession, the Draft 2019 suggested that the two-year B.Ed. programme could be replaced by a suitably structured special B.Ed. programme of slightly shorter duration. This replacement B.Ed. program would be determined by the same multidisciplinary institutions offering the four-year integrated and two-year B.Ed. programmes. Teacher Certification NEP 2019 did not address teacher certification. Instead its focus was on the B.Ed. degree program to improve teacher quality.

160 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Professional Development The Draft NEP 2019 favored continuous professional development (CPD) for teachers. Draft NEP 2019 stated, “Teachers must be given constant opportunities for self-improvement and to learn the latest innovations and advances in their profession” (p. 119). It recommended a modular approach for CPD where teachers choose what they think is required for their own development. Workshops on diverse subjects would be offered to teachers, whether they be local, state, or international. Also, NEP 2019 recommends that online CPD opportunities as well as platforms where teachers can share ideas and best practices be made available. The Draft NEP 2019 stated that teachers will be expected to participate in at least 50 CPD hours every year. Teachers would be encouraged to take CPD in inclusive education to be sensitized to different learners and would then be able to cater to the educational needs of all students. Apart from the CPD, universities would be encouraged to offer certificate courses on equity and inclusiveness to qualified teachers. The State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) would be responsible for the CPD of the teachers and headed by an educationist with an “outstanding” record. The SCERT would report to the Department of Education. Additionally, Draft NEP 2019 advocated self-directed personal development for teachers where teachers would take upon themselves the onus of self or peer development rather than a “command and control type directed learning” (p. 129). The implementation stage in any policy making is critical as it gives a concrete shape to an abstract plan (Haddad, 1995, as cited in Dyer, 1999). As such, Draft NEP 2019 recognized that earlier policies had not been able to raise India’s educational sector quality, mostly because of lack of implementation. Instead, the previous national education policies had provided a few guiding principles as well as a broad roadmap for actions to be implemented by appropriate bodies. But, implementation of this guiding principles and roadmap of actions was missing, according to Draft NEP 2019. Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Indicators Teacher Salary/Performance Pay The Draft policy recommended that teachers be compensated fairly based on their social and professional responsibilities. Draft NEP 2019 asserted that teachers’ salary/performance pay should be capable of attracting and retaining talented teachers. The Draft policy wanted to bring equity to the pay structure within the school levels, which means teachers from the foundation stage to secondary school would have the same pay structure. This, the Draft policy stated, “is to support the fact that all stages of school education will require the highest-quality teachers, and thus no stage will be considered more important than any other” (p. 130).

Restoring Credibility

161

The Draft policy planned that by 2030 when the integrated four-year B.Ed. degree became a mandatory qualification for every teacher, there would be parity in the salary structure at all levels. However, teachers would be given the opportunity to progress in the level they were in based on merits. Teacher promotion would then automatically lead to a salary increase. The Draft policy laid out five levels in every stage wherein movement upwards would lead to incentive and salary raise: early teacher (without tenure), early teacher (with tenure), proficient teacher, expert teacher, and master teacher. Additionally, promotions or salary increases would not be based on years of employment or seniority but rather on a teacher performance appraisal developed by each state. The appraisal or performance standards would be based on teaching quality, research, and service (p. 131). Teacher Absenteeism Draft NEP 2019 clearly stated that there would be no interruption to class schedules and teachers would not be doing any non-teaching activities so that they would be able to teach with full dedication and not be absent from their classes. Teachers who were absent without cause or approved leave would be held accountable (p. 126). Apart from this, very little was said about teacher absenteeism even though it was a critical factor recognized throughout Draft NEP 2019 for its impact on student learning. Teacher Attitude Regarding teacher attitude, Draft NEP 2019 stated that one of the qualities an outstanding teacher should possess is an attitude towards students to encourage easy teacher–student relations. Also, Draft NEP 2019 asserted that teachers should be caring and dedicated to their work, which would reflect on student learning. Teacher Accountability According to Draft NEP 2019, teachers would be periodically appraised to evaluate their performance. As a starting point the already existing PINDICS would be used until 2020 when a common guiding set of National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST) was supposed to be in place. The Draft policy stated that teachers were accountable not only to students but to parents, the community, and the public. The Draft policy also stressed that teachers could be held accountable only if they were empowered. While developing the NPST, the SCERT would also develop frameworks for the empowerment of teachers’ roles within their states (p. 132). The Draft policy also reinforced the need for high quality teachers to be accountable for student learning outcomes. However, how the teachers would be held accountable was not clarified in Draft NEP 2019.

162 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Recognizing that all previous national policies failed to be implemented, the Draft policy also called upon every Indian citizen to contribute to the implementation of Draft NEP 2019’s policies and recommendations to the best of their ability. The Draft policy also put forth a guide for the implementation plan and laid the responsibility for the detailed plan and its execution with various bodies. For example, Draft NEP 2019 proposed setting up the Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog (RSA) or National Education Commission. The RSA would be responsible for developing, articulating, implementing, evaluating, and revising the vision of education in India (GoI MHRD, 2019, p. 393). RSA would have 20–30 members who are eminent educationists to frame the overall guidelines. To achieve India’s vision for education the RSA would be headed by the Prime Minister. All existing and specialized governing bodies and assessment councils were to come under its wing in diverse forms according to Draft NEP 2019. Apart from implementation of the policy, education funding in India has always been low even though NEP 86/92 and the earlier policy NPE 1968 both stressed the importance of education in India. Draft NEP 2019, therefore, proposed increasing public funding for education to 6% of the gross domestic product (GDP), which was more than double the existing funding (e.g., 2.7% in 2017–18). Much of this proposed 6% of GDP budget increase would be used for teacher education and CPD, according to Draft NEP 2019. It also advocated increasing the overall public expenditure on education to 20% against the existing expenditure of 10% (p. 402). Draft NEP 2019 identified funding for education as an “investment” rather than an “expense” (p. 399). As an investment, education should provide returns on that investment rather than an expense where there are no expected returns. The large deficit in public expenditure in education has resulted in low salaries and compensations to teachers, which significantly impacts teacher quality (GoI MRHD, 2016). Therefore, Draft NEP 2019 argued for an increase in funding towards education, which would yield individual and societal returns, leading to increased and sustainable overall growth and development of the country’s economic, social, political, and educational sectors. As a comprehensive plan, the efforts by the NEP 2019 committee to transform the education system of the country are commendable. However, the Draft was not without faults in respect to teacher and teacher education. First, the committee members who drafted the policy were all eminent personalities, but not a single member was a school teacher. This oversight in committee membership was is surprising since the importance of teachers in directly improving the quality of education and indirectly influencing the country’s economy was highlighted throughout Draft NEP 2019. Second, NEP 2019 proposed a sound plan on paper for professional standards for teachers for their career progression, salary increment, and professional development. In fact, Draft NEP 2019 stated, “the professional standards will be reviewed and revised nationally and then at the State level in 2030, and thereafter every ten years, on the basis of rigorous empirical analysis of the efficacy of the system” (p. 131). However, history has shown that

Restoring Credibility

163

implementation and follow up of plans have been an issue repeatedly, as seen with the earlier policies. The Draft policy did not specify proper control mechanisms for ensuring that the National and State professional standards to improve teacher quality would be executed efficiently. Past experiences in India strongly suggest that this oversight may lead to loopholes and malpractices (GoI MHRD, 2019). Third, Draft NEP 2019 talked about teacher autonomy in respect to CPD whereby teachers would be expected to assume the onus for CPD in areas they felt they needed training. How effectively and efficiently this would happen was left to the teachers and school management. Also, the Draft policy talked about modular, accredited courses and other CPD options to be made available to all teachers in a decentralized fashion (p. 129). Yet, Draft NEP 2019 did not specify or even recommend who might offer the courses, nor how teacher requirements would be assessed since every teacher’s individual needs for training would differ. Such questions are left unanswered by Draft NEP 2019. Fourth, the focus of Draft NEP 2019 is on CPD and teacher education for new teachers. However, little thought was given to existing or experienced teachers. Finally, it is indeed surprising that Draft NEP 2019 does not make much mention of teacher absenteeism, which is a major factor impacting student learning in India.

Conceptual Framework Alignment The Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 both address similar goals of education in India, especially for the development of teacher quality. But, each draft national education policy approaches the process differently. Draft NEP 2016 approached the idea of national education reform from a delegitimization point of view and started by discussing many of the challenges of Indian education before stating a vision for where India’s education system needed to go. Draft NEP 2019 did not address the challenges in the same way, but instead opted for a more legitimization approach. But, Draft NEP 2019 did more explicitly link national education in India to international declarations, universal standards of education, and economic development. As we suggest below, each draft national education policy focuses on the de facto education– economy link and the scripting of legitimized Indian education policy more than on the implementation of teacher quality reform. De Facto Education–Economy Link in Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 The de facto education–economy link has four components of which both draft national education policies show evidence. These four components are: (1) alignment with international declarations; (2) reference to or use of universal

164 Education Policies for Teacher Quality standards for education development; (3) situation of Indian national education within a global testing and accountability movement; and (4) recognition of the unique economic impact of education in India. Evidence from both Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 suggests alignment with each of these components more strongly than in NCF 2005 or NCFTE 2009. Alignment with international declarations and universal standards for education development are in both Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 as follows. Draft NEP 2016 states (p. 13), The global Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) within the Agenda 2030 seeks to “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. The EFA agenda initiated in 2000 remains unfinished, particularly those relating to youth and adult illiterates, out-of-school children, low access to Early Childhood Care and Education, inadequate opportunities for skill development and unsatisfactory quality of education and student learning levels. The NEP will, therefore, pursue both the unfinished EFA agenda and the targets associated with SDG4. This statement in Draft NEP 2016 is in a section titled “Global Commitment”, which is a direct acknowledgement of the Indian alignment with multilateral organizations like UNESCO, the World Bank, and other international organizations committed to fulfilling the global goal of providing “equitable quality education” (SDG 4) by 2030, and even harkens back to the Education for All (EFA) agenda from 2000, which focuses largely on universal primary education, or Universal Elementary Education (UEE) as stated in NCFTE 2009. The Draft NEP 2019 has many references to the alignment – or proposed alignment – of Indian national education policy to international declarations on education and universal standards for educational development. For example, on pages 24–25 of the Preamble, the Draft NEP 2019 describes declarations and standards established by a bevy of international organizations such as UNESCO, the OECD, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and the Brookings Institution, which focus on the provision of equitable quality education for all. Further into the preamble in a section titled, “Alignment with the Global Sustainable Development Goals,” the Draft NEP 2019 states (p. 27), The direction of the global education development agenda is reflected in the sustainable development goal 4 (SDG4) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. SDG4 seeks to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030…. SDG4 is, therefore, an all-encompassing goal, which is applicable to every nation attempting to bring quality of life to its citizens in a sustainable way, without degrading the environment.

Restoring Credibility

165

These statements recognize the clear alignment of both the 2016 and 2019 Draft National Education Policies with key portions of the de facto education–economy link. The first two components of international declarations and universal standards development are explicitly aligned at the beginning of both documents in a way that was not done as explicitly in either NCF 2005 or NCFTE 2009. Global testing and accountability is a further key component of the de facto education–economy link, which includes the incorporation of large-scale, standardized assessment nationwide in order to measure student and teacher performance and hold educators and educational administrators accountable for the quality of education provided to Indian students. The Draft NEP 2016 highlights the lack of rigorous and consistent educational assessment of students, teachers, schools, and at the higher education level. It provides a comprehensive critique of the quality of assessment and its use for further improvement or customization of education for improved teaching and learning in the key challenges section early on by saying (p. 9), The overall assessment practices at the school and college/university level remain unsatisfactory. In most cases the assessment of learning achievement continues to focus on rote learning and testing the students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge. The whole assessment system needs to be revamped to ensure comprehensive assessment of the students, including learning outcomes relating to both scholastic and co-scholastic domains. This clear critique of assessment at all levels of education in India is then followed later in the Draft NEP 2016 with the recommendation that a School Quality Assessment and Accreditation System be developed, which would provide a framework for the development of school standards with various parameters and indicators to measure school quality, professional competence of teachers, school leadership and the school management, as well as, self-appraisal and performance assessment will be used throughout the country. Thereafter, schools will be evaluated, graded and ranked based on this framework. (pp. 32–33) There is further discussion in the Draft NEP 2016 of a system for assessing higher education in India as well. The establishment of standards and the infrastructure to assess the implementation and performance of students, teachers, educators and administrators in education against those standards is a key component of the global testing and accountability movement. Draft NEP 2016 makes these statements about testing and accountability much more explicitly and comprehensively than NCF 2005 or NCFTE 2009 did. The Draft NEP 2019 takes testing and accountability to the next level as well. In a lengthy section titled, “Transforming Assessment for Student Development” (pp. 104–109), it is asserted that “the culture of assessment

166 Education Policies for Teacher Quality must shift from one that primarily tests rote memorization to one that is more formative, promotes learning, and tests higher-order skills” (p. 107). In other words, the Draft NEP 2019 builds directly on and goes far beyond what the Draft NEP 2016 asserted about the existing state of educational assessment in Indian education and emphasizes that this is no longer a mechanism for educational development in India; now it is a “culture of assessment”. The final component of the de facto education–economy link is the acknowledgement of the role that education plays in both individual and national economic development. As the Draft NEP 2016 acknowledges, “India’s political, social and economic development is passing through a phase which necessitates a robust and forward looking education system” (p. 4). But, more importantly, the Draft NEP 2016 begins to use the phrase “knowledge economy” through the draft national education policy. This signals an important shift in the framing of educational development in the country from one where it may be only a de facto acknowledgement of the education–economy link to one where the symbiotic relationship between education and the economy is acknowledged. In fact, the term “knowledge economy” is used five times in the Draft NEP 2016, sometimes in reference to inclusive education, adult education, and higher education. But, the following statement in the preamble to the Draft NEP 2016 is the clearest (p. 5): [The Draft NEP 2016] recognizes that long-term economic growth and development of the nation critically depends upon the quality of the products of the education system and that an education system built on the premises of quality and equity is central to sustainable development and to achieving success in the emerging knowledge economy and society. The Draft NEP 2019 follows this closely, when it its preamble it states (p. 27): Globalisation and the demands of a knowledge economy and a knowledge society call for emphasis on the need for acquisition of new skills by learners on a regular basis, for them to ‘learn how to learn’ and become lifelong learners. The narrow time lag between the generation of new knowledge and its application, especially in the fields of science and technology, necessitate the periodic renewal of school and higher education curricula to maintain their relevance to the changing societal and personal needs of learners, and the emerging national development goals. In both the Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019, the emphasis on the education–economy link is no longer “de facto” but is now closer to “de jure” due to its recognition in both draft national education policies in India. Legitimacy-Seeking Scripts of Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 Legitimacy-seeking may be observed in both the Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 through (1) intensity or frequency of legitimization (or delegitimization)

Restoring Credibility

167

claims (Zaller, 1992); (2) the evaluative tone of communicated messages where negative messages (delegitimation) tend to carry more weight than positive messages (legitimation) (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979); and (3) strength of communicated message in relation to existing contextualized attitudes (Druckman, 2001). Earlier analyses already aligned the traditional and nontraditional teacher quality indicators in both the Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 with the global discourse surrounding teacher quality and related outcomes. However, these two draft national education policies in India reflect intense, evaluative, and contextualized legitimization claims in the way that each is scripted. First of all, both drafts of India’s national education policy reflect intense and frequent legitimization claims. These claims are made in the Draft NEP 2016 more in terms of delegitimization coupled then with legitimization claims. This is seen most clearly in Chapter 2 of the Draft NEP 2016, which focuses on “key challenges in [the] education sector” (pp. 7–13), followed by Chapter 3, which focuses on the “vision, mission, goals and objectives” of education in India (pp. 14–16). In the Draft NEP 2016 chapter on key challenges, the committee authoring the draft policy framework communicates several negative messages about the state of education in India. These negative messages are communicated as “challenges” to the system and for new education policy to address, but more importantly these challenges delegitimize the way that education operates in India at the time of the Draft NEP 2016’s writing. In other words, it overtly draws attention to the educational behaviors, activities, structures, and applications in India to create an explicit awareness of what is wrong with education in India in order to set up in the following chapters the new legitimate approach to education. This is a vital step in the process of educational reform in India because previous national educational policies in the 21st century had not called out the ineffective, old fashioned, colonial legacy of education in India in this way, but had instead focused on visioning best practices for education in India. While visioning what education and, specifically, teacher quality should look like in India to achieve the country’s educational goals is important, the highly public delegitimization phase of this process made the follow-up legitimization chapters even more meaningful. For example, in Chapter 3 of the Draft NEP 2016 when the first mission of education in India is said to be to “ensure equitable, inclusive and quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all – children, youth and adults – and to promote the realisation the nation’s human potential to its fullest, with equity and excellence” (p. 14), this statement could be seen as yet another decontextualized statement meant to symbolically align India’s educational trajectory with globally legitimized international norms and values. But, when it is preceded by stark admissions that Indian “children from disadvantaged population groups” lack access to education, that enrollment rates in education in some Indian states are consistently and persistently far below the national average, and that regional disparities in higher education

168 Education Policies for Teacher Quality enrollment are quite large as well (p. 10), the mission of ensuring equitable, inclusive, and quality education has context and becomes even more legitimizing. A further contextualizing and legitimizing admission in the Draft NEP 2016 is that although many reform agendas and activities have been ongoing for years or even decades (p. 17), but with little or no change in India’s overall quality of education. This is a stark statement and one that again delegitimizes educational reform in India before following immediately with a legitimizing and lengthy policy framework directly aimed at increasing the quality of education overall (p. 17). It is also relevant to point out that the Draft NEP 2016 acknowledges that “there is no single solution or remedy that can address the multiple challenges of access, inclusion and excellence, while attempting to harbinger change” (p. 17). From a comprehensive analytic perspective, the Draft NEP 2016 may not be the most useful in terms of the policy framework itself, and it certainly was not implemented (as will be discussed below) in any coordinated sense, but the value of the Draft NEP 2016 is great in terms of the development of national education policy in India in the 21st century. It is the first and only national education policy framework to directly and explicitly address the problems with India’s existing education system. Second, it is the first to explicitly focus on the diversity of India’s educational landscape given demographic, economic, social, cultural, linguistic, and infrastructure characteristics within the country. For this reason alone, the Draft NEP 2016 is a watershed document. The Draft NEP 2019, therefore, picks up where the Draft NEP 2016 leaves off, in terms of following a script for legitimacy-seeking in the draft policy itself. Building on the admission of India’s educational challenges in the Draft NEP 2016 and the diversity of challenges within and across India’s communities, the Draft NEP 2019 focused more on alignment with international standards and practices, as already discussed. But, in the policy framework itself, a new format was followed that allowed for a deeper contextualization not just in India’s own environment, but in both India and the international community. For example, in the Draft NEP 2019, each chapter highlights a specific need area in Indian education, states an objective related to that need, and then begins with a research summary to provide context for the specific need. Then subsections in each chapter address key goals related to the overall objective with suggestions and recommendations for how to achieve them. The Draft NEP 2019 uses this structure quite effectively and as a result is the most structured and strategic of India’s national education policy documents to date. Decoupled Implementation Process of the Draft NEP 2016 and Draft NEP 2019 To this point, we have shown how both the 2016 and 2019 draft national education policies in India have reflected the de facto education–economy link,

Restoring Credibility

169

and scripted a highly legitimized policy framework, which is contextualized both in India’s unique environment and conditions as well as in the international community. But, as was mentioned earlier, both are draft policies, so their implementation phase is not fulfilled. Having said that, however, each draft policy document provides a framework for implementation, which can be evaluated in terms of (1) the infrastructure deemed necessary for implementation and sustainable sources identified for those resources; (2) the knowledge and skills (i.e., capacity) among those responsible for implementation of each facet of the draft policy as well as among those who are the target beneficiaries of the draft policy; and (3) the sustainability of the draft policy in terms of leadership and empowerment among the target stakeholders, which includes those both responsible for its implementation as well as the effects of the policy itself. The Draft NEP 2016 states clearly that “there is sufficient evidence to show that past policy recommendations have remained unrealized due to lack of mechanisms being put in place for effective implementation” (p. 42). Much of the reason for a lack of implementation is infrastructure. In fact, the Draft NEP 2016 acknowledges that “financial resources have always been a challenge that limits efficiency in outputs” and the implementation of previous national education policies (p. 42). But the Draft NEP 2016 goes no further. It does not discuss approaches to building the capacity in India to implement national education policies, other than calling on “the entire governmental machinery, private sector and all other extra-governmental agencies and the country as a whole” to “shoulder the national responsibility” for implementing the Draft NEP 2016 (p. 42). This, frankly, is not enough. The Draft NEP 2019 goes a few steps further in their implementation framework by providing a recommendation to create “a new apex body, the Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog or National Education Commission” (p. 392) to be the entity responsible for implementing the recommended national education policy. The Draft NEP 2019 also includes a section titled, “Making It Happen” (pp. 399ff), which includes addendums on “financing” (pp. 399–420) and the “way forward” (pp. 422–436). These two sections go into detail about where and how to obtain and sustain infrastructure (i.e., financing) for educational reform and policy implementation as well as the roles that various educational, governmental, and community entities will be involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of strategies following on the policy framework set out in the Draft NEP 2019. In short, the framework that the Draft NEP 2019 sets out is highly detailed, at least compared to previous national education policies in India. Unfortunately, the Draft NEP 2019 remains a draft, and implementation activity does not necessarily follow a draft document. Approaching Teacher Quality Reform in the 21st Century The two draft national education policies in 2016 and 2019 mark important turning points in India’s national education policy development. Both draft

170 Education Policies for Teacher Quality policies mark more overt attempts to both legitimize the vision, mission, objectives, and goals of education in India in the nation’s context as well as in the international education and development communities. And, the 2016 and 2019 draft policies also worked in concert (whether purposefully or not) to contrast a delegitimization of India’s existing educational condition, especially in terms of teacher quality, with a more legitimized version of what Indian education and teacher quality will be.

References Agariya, A. K., & Singh, D. (2012). e-Learning quality: Scale development and validation in Indian context. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 4(4), 500–517. Azim Premji Foundation. (2018, April 26). Don’t blame the teachers: Azim Premji. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/guest-column/story/20180507-azimpremji-column-on-indian-education-system-teachers-1221665-2018-04-26. Behera, S. K. (2013). E- and M-Learning: A comparative study. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(3), 65–78. Bhatty, K. (2014). Review of elementary education policy in India: Has it upheld the constitutional objective of equality?Economic and Political Weekly, 100–107. Dhanker, R. (2016, August 10). Dumbing down a pliable workforce. The Hindu. https:// rohitdhankar.com/tag/national-education-policy/. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066. Dyer, C. (1999). Researching the implementation of educational policy: A backward mapping approach. Comparative Education, 35(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/ pdf/3099466.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad3dfb1c16fbc75387878ba5b39b00a44. Gafoor, K. A., & Narayan, S. (2012). Out-of-school experience categories influencing interest in science of upper primary students by gender and locale: Exploration on an Indian sample. Science Education International, 23(3), 191–204. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2016). Some Inputs for Draft National Education Policy 2016. MHRD. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/uploa d_files/mhrd/files/nep/inputs_Draft_NEP_2016.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2019). Draft National Education Policy EP 2019. MHRD. https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/ upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. Majumdar, M., & Mooij, J. E. (2011). Education and inequality in India: A classroom view. New York: Routledge. Sekher, A. (2016, August 13). Saffronising and corporatizing Indian Education: Critique of the National Educational Policy 2016 draft. https://www.sabrangindia. in/article/saffronising-and-corporatising-indian-education-critique-national-educationalpolicy-2016. Suhag, R. (2016, October 3). Rethinking education: The draft NEP 2016. PRS India. https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/rethinking-education-draft-nep-2016. Shah, G. (2012). Democracy, equality and education. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 26(4), 513–533.

Restoring Credibility

171

Velaskar, P. (2010). Quality and inequality in Indian education: Some critical policy concerns. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 7(1), 58–93. Viswanathan, D., & Blom, J. (2010). New metaphors from old practices: Mobile learning to revitalize education in developing regions of the world. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 18–23. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

8

Rooting Equitable Education in Teacher Quality Teacher Quality Discourse in NEP 2020

Rootedness is a key concept in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. There are references to “rootedness and pride in India”, “rooted in Indian ethos”, and “a deep-rooted pride in being Indian” (GoI MHRD, 2020, p. 6). There is discussion about how curriculum and pedagogy will be “strongly rooted in the Indian and local context” as well as “ideas abstractions, and creativity…[being]…rooted in the Indian and local geographic context” (p. 16). NEP 2020 talks about rooting social and scientific solutions being “rooted in a deep understanding” of the social sciences, humanities, cultural, and environmental dimensions of India (p. 45). And, NEP 2020 unequivocally states that “the teaching profession must be restored” to its former quality and standards (p. 20). The focus on rooting education in Indian society, culture, and historical accomplishments and context is a way to establish legitimacy, or more clearly credibility, among the Indian stakeholders and public. By providing this clear nationalistic pride in India, and asserting that the NEP 2020 is grounded (i.e., rooted) in the best that India has to offer not only inspires citizens to respect teachers and aspire for greater education, but also provides a foundation to expand beyond the borders of India to achieve global legitimacy for India’s economic, political, and educational systems. This is all part of a strategic attempt to socially construct the target population for the National Education Policy 2020 (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). In this way, the benefactors of the new policy are defined as Indians from all areas, whether they are rural or urban, rich or poor, male or female. This is a clear politicized effort to build consensus and push for the equitable development of education in India.

National Education Policy 2020 The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was approved by the Union Cabinet of India on the 29th July 2020 and is the first fully official National Education Policy in the 21st century. NEP 2020 replaces the NPE 1986 and proposes a new comprehensive framework for the Indian education system. Whether the NEP 2020 is the result of recommendations and inputs after intense review of the Draft NEP 2016 and the Draft NEP 2019 is not

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

173

disclosed. All earlier policies including the Draft 2016 and Draft 2019 underwent massive consultation processes and reviews, but little information is available of the process that led to formulation of NEP 2020 (Menon, 2020). The available NEP 2020 is a 65-page document uploaded and made available to the public by the MHRD. However, it has not been officially disclosed whether parts of the 500-page Draft NEP 2019 have been included in the NEP 2020 or if the Draft NEP 2019 was a process that led to NEP 2020. Media coverage does report that NEP 2020 is a result of intense reviews by various stakeholders of the Draft NEP 2019 (Dixit, 2020). Nevertheless, NEP 2020 is the first official national education policy under the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) government and envisages changes in the way education will be delivered in India. NEP 2020 includes massive amendments and reforms in schools and higher education compared to the previous NPE 1986. The NEP 2020 is systematically divided into four sections of school education, higher education, other key areas of focus, and “making it happen”. NEP 2020 recognizes the global changes in knowledge, technology and scientific advances and the need for skilled labor force who are not only STEM educated but are also educated across multidisciplinary disciplines. For such a skilled labor force, students need to learn how to learn and education needs a shift from content rote learning towards teaching students “ towards learning about how to think critically and solve problems, how to be creative and multidisciplinary, and how to innovate, adapt, and absorb new material in novel and changing fields” (GoI MHRD, 2020, p 3). The vision of NEP 2020 is rooted in the “Indian ethos that contributes directly to transforming India, that is Bharat, sustainably into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society, by providing high-quality education to all, and thereby making India a global knowledge superpower” (GoI MHRD, 2020, p. 6). It further adds that the gap between the current state of learning outcomes and what is expected will be bridged through required reforms from early childhood education through higher education.

Some Proposed Changes School Structure Reinforcing the importance of quality and equity in education in India, NEP 2020 proposes revamping all aspects of the education system in the country by 2040 to provide equitable access to a high-quality education to all irrespective of the learner’s socio-economic background. In a shift from the current education structure of 10 + 2 years of schooling as proposed by NPE 1986, the NEP 2020 initiates a 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 structure of schooling. This new structure aligns with the cognitive development years of students which are the five foundational years (3–8 years old), three preparatory years (9–11 years old), three middle school years (11–14 years old), and four secondary school years (14–18 years old) (GoI MHRD, 2020). The proposed changes are to improve critical thinking and flexibility in the thought process while moving away from the persistent rote learning method, which has

174 Education Policies for Teacher Quality been embedded in Indian education since the colonial era (Allender, 2009; Seth, 2007). It also rightly focusses on early childhood education which research has stated is most crucial in building a child’s literacy and numeracy skills (French, 2013; Munn, 1994). NEP 2020 asserts that this multidisciplinary approach to schooling will allow students to have a holistic education that also includes social, emotional, and ethical capabilities rather than being pushed into the three traditional streams of arts, science, and commerce (GoI MHRD, 2020). Apart from changing the mode of exams and student assessment, the NEP 2020 gives a lot more flexibility to students to choose subjects. Rather than the current, summative assessments, there will be competency-based assessment where students are tested not just on academic performance but more towards overall development. These efforts at flexible curriculum progression and self-determination among learners suggests that NEP 2020 is focused on creating a more democratic and less streamed or tracked system of education in India. Evidence has suggested that the streams or tracks that learners follow in the Indian education system is largely due to family background, access to school resources, and other socioeconomic factors (Kumar, 2020). By providing alternative avenues for learners’ educational development and progression, and by providing learners and their families the ability to be part of the decision-making process, the NEP 2020 is focusing on providing equity in education through a more democratic approach (Subba, 2014). Multilingualism NEP 2020 plans for both private and public schools to teach students in their mother tongue or local language until grade 5 and, if possible, until grade 8. The argument behind this proposal is that children will learn better and grasp concepts when taught in their mother tongue. Students will begin to learn science and mathematics bilingually in grade 6 so that by the end of grade 9 they can speak about science and other subjects both in their home language and English. This means that both the central and state governments will need to invest in large numbers of language teachers in all regional languages around the country. States across India will hire teachers in large numbers from each other, to satisfy the three-language formula in their respective states, and also to encourage the study of Indian languages across the country (GoI MHRD, 2020). The multilingualism proposal by NEP 2020 is also an attempt to educate students to understand that “India’s languages are among the richest, most scientific, most beautiful, and most expressive in the world” and make “young Indians aware of the rich and vast array of languages of their country, and the treasures that they and their literatures contain” (GoI MHRD, 2020, p. 14). Curriculum According to NEP 2020, changes in the curriculum will lead to the holistic development of Indian children and be more skill-based rather than the existing purely academic curriculum and rote learning pedagogy. NEP 2020 states,

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

175

“The curricular and pedagogical structure of school education will be reconfigured to make it responsive and relevant to the developmental needs and interests of learners at different stages of their development” (p. 11). In addition, syllabi content will be reduced, and students will be given flexibility and a choice of subjects across arts, humanities, sciences, sports, and vocational subjects. By 2021, the National Curriculum Framework will be prepared by the NCETE and by 2022 the SCERTs across the country are expected to adopt this new curriculum in all states by 2021. The NCERT and SCERTs will redesign all the textbooks to fit the new curriculum in three phases between 2021 and 2024. Teacher Quality For the proposed changes, NEP 2020 reinforces the importance of teacher quality and teachers as shapers of the next generation of Indian citizens. Rather than blaming teachers for the poor quality of student outcomes, NEP 2020 blames poor quality and structure of teacher education, recruitment, deployment, and service conditions for a lack of teacher quality (Chari, 2020). NEP 2020 recognizes that the proposed reforms to restore quality, integrity and credibility in the Indian education system will be unsuccessful without transforming the way in which teachers are placed in the current education system. It categorically states, “The new education policy must help recruit the very best and brightest to enter the teaching profession at all levels, by ensuring livelihood, respect, dignity, and autonomy, while also instilling in the system basic methods of quality control and accountability” (GoI MHRD, 2020, p. 4). As a step towards these reforms, the new policy discontinues the unequal system of para- or contract teachers. NEP 2020 further proposes that strengthening teacher education is the best way to prepare teachers to shape the new generation as with the proposed changes in NEP 2020, the responsibility of and expectations from the teachers has certainly increased. Among other things, the NEP has renamed the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) as the Ministry of Education, a sign of the country’s changing focus on education (Chari, 2020). Teacher Quality Discourse NEP 2020 Additional discourse on the various teacher quality attributes as stated in NEP 2020 is discussed under the two sub-sections: traditional and non-traditional teacher quality variables. NEP 2020 Analysis Using content analysis, a qualitative research methodology described in Chapter 5, 100% of the relevant pages (22 pages) from the NEP 2020 official document were coded. Relevant pages are those pages from the document that contain one or more of the selected keywords. Tables of contents, introductions, epilogues, summaries, and any figures and diagrams were excluded.

176 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Table 8.1 Pages Coded in Final Coding Title

Year

Total Pages

Relevant Pages

Final Coding Pages

NEP

2020

62

22

22

Qualitative Results for NEP 2020 Data frequency tables that show the percentage of sentences coded in each category in relation to the total number of sentences, including those marked as “Irrelevant” to the study were used to compile the results to understand how NEP 2020 framed the various teacher quality variables. There were 756 sentences coded for traditional teacher quality variables in NEP 2020, out of which 84 sentences (11%) were irrelevant. From the relevant sentences, 306 sentences (46%) were coded for teacher qualifications. There was no mention of teacher certification. And, 161 sentences (24%) were coded for professional development. For NEP 2020, in respect to non-traditional teacher quality variables, there were 756 total sentences coded in the document, out of which 84 (11%) were irrelevant to the study. From the relevant sentences, 151 sentences (20%) were coded for teacher salary/performance pay. Sixteen sentences (2%) were coded for teacher absenteeism. Twenty sentences (3%) were coded for teacher qualified in mathematics. Twelve sentences (2%) were coded for teacher attitude, and six sentences (1%) for teacher accountability. The following section discusses the teacher quality discourse in NEP 2020 in respect to the selected traditional and non-traditional teacher quality variables as determined from the coding.

Teacher Quality Discourse in NEP 2020 Traditional Teacher Quality Variables Teacher Qualification Similar to the Draft NEP 2019, the NEP 2020 proposed systematic reforms for teacher education. Based on recommendations given by NEP 2020, Table 8.2 Data Frequency Table for Traditional Teacher Quality Variables Teacher Qualification

Teacher Certification

Professional Development

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

NEP 2020

306

46

0

0

161

24

84

11

756

100

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

177

Table 8.3 Data Frequency Table for Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Variables Including Teacher Accountability Teacher Salary/ Performance Pay

Teacher Absenteeism

Teacher Qualified in Mathematics

Teacher Attitude

Teacher Account Ability

Irrelevant Sentences in Document

Total Sentences in Document

Document

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

%

S

NEP 2020

151

20

16

2

20

3

12

2

6

1

84

11 756 100

%

Note. S denotes the number of sentences for each category in individual documents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1%.

NCFTE 2021 will be created to guide all teacher pre-service and in-service training and education in academics, vocational, and special needs areas to cater to the new reforms proposed to the education system. The NCFTE will thereby be revised every five–ten years to account for changes. The minimum qualifications for schoolteachers will be the four-year integrated B.Ed. degree. Admission to the multidisciplinary teacher education institutes will be conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). All multidisciplinary universities are directed to set up an education department and run B.Ed. programmes in collaboration with their other departments such as psychology, philosophy, sociology, neuroscience, languages, arts, music, history, literature, physical education, science, and mathematics. In addition, research will be conducted to enhance the quality of teacher education provided to teachers during the four-year course. To improve the quality of teacher education and training, NEP 2002 proposes that the course work for the B.Ed. program include effective techniques in pedagogy on foundational literacy and numeracy, multi-level teaching and evaluation, teaching children with disabilities, with use of educational technology, and collaborative learning (GoI MHRD, 2020). Additionally, the course work will expose teachers to environmental awareness and sustainability as environmental studies is to be included as an integral part of school curriculum. Teachers will be given strong practical teacher training at local schools. Students who have completed their B.Ed. in other streams and want to enter the teaching profession can avail themselves of a two-year B. Ed. program from the same multidisciplinary universities or institutions that offer the four-year integrated program. All fresh Ph.D. entrants, irrespective of discipline, will be required to take credit-based courses in teaching, education, pedagogy, and writing related to their chosen Ph.D. subject during their doctoral training period in the hope that many students with their doctorate degree will enter the teaching profession or conduct research to improve teaching practices.

178 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Additionally, NEP 2020 recommends emphasizing the practice of the Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) of the Indian Constitution along with other Constitutional provisions while teaching any subject or performing any activity. It will also appropriately integrate environmental awareness and sensitivity towards its conservation and sustainable development, so that environment education becomes an integral part of school curricula. (p. 23) This focus on environmental sustainability reflects a 21st century awareness of the role that each generation plays in the care and sustainable development of the natural environment, and indicates that “good” citizenship in India includes an awareness and activity in support of sustainable environmental practices from commercial to individual activities. Institutions like the DIETs and Basic Institute for Teacher Solutions (BITS) will provide special short local teacher education programs to “eminent local persons” to teach arts and local crafts (GoI MHRD, 2020, p. 24). Short post-B.Ed. courses in the same multidisciplinary universities or institutions are also planned to be offered to teachers who want to move to leadership positions, teach specialized areas like special needs education, or move from one school stage to another. These on-demand training programs will both build awareness of local cultural and artistic knowledge and skills, but also allow for career mobility and professional development among in-service teachers in India. Finally, to improve quality of teacher education and training and restore its integrity, NEP 2020 promises to take stringent action against unauthorized substandard Teacher Eligibility Tests (TETs) running in the country. The recognition that substandard TETs exist and need to be appropriately monitored suggests that NEP 2020 plans to uphold the educational system to minimum standards of competence and expertise, which are key characteristics of teacher quality. Teacher Qualification in Mathematics NEP 2020 understands the importance of teacher subject matter competency though it has not specifically mentioned any particular subjects. For teachers to be educated and trained to teach a particular subject, NEP 2020 says that a one year B.Ed. program, will be offered only to those who have completed the equivalent of a four year multidisciplinary bachelor’s degree or who have obtained a master’s degree in a specialty and wish to become a subject teacher in that specialty (GoI MHRD, 2020, p. 23). Additionally, for subject teachers, suitable TET or National Testing Agency (NTA) test scores in the corresponding subjects will also be taken into account for recruitment.

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

179

Teacher Certification NEP 2020 did not address teacher certification. Instead its focus was on the teacher degree programs of the B.Ed., M.Ed., and Ph.D. to improve teacher quality. Professional Development NPE 2020 resonates with the Draft NEP 2019 on the importance of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for teachers. NEP 2020 states, “Teachers will be given continuous opportunities for self-improvement and to learn the latest innovations and advances in their professions” (p. 21). It recommended a modular approach for CPD where teachers choose what they think is required for their own development and participate in at least 50 hours of CPD each year. Workshops on diverse subjects would be offered to teachers, whether they be local, state, or international. Also, NEP 2020 recommends that online CPD opportunities as well as platforms where teachers can share ideas and best practices be made available. To resonate with the proposed changes in the school structure and curriculum that focuses on the foundational years of child development, NEP 2020 states, “CPD opportunities will, in particular, systematically cover the latest pedagogies regarding foundational literacy and numeracy, formative and adaptive assessment of learning outcomes, competency-based learning, and other related pedagogies…” (p. 22). Non-Traditional Teacher Quality Variables Teacher Salary/Performance Pay To improve teacher motivation that will lead to improved teacher quality, NEP 2020 proposes setting up a set of National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST) which will determine and be used to monitor fair salary structure as well as salary increases for teachers. NPST will also recognize teachers doing outstanding work who will be promoted and given salary increases accordingly. To ensure that teachers do not move from school to school for salary hikes, the NPST will also give teachers the opportunity for career growth within the same school (GoI MHRD, 2020). As per the new policy, NPST will set up certain standards on the basis of which teachers will be appraised. The standards will be based on the expectations for teachers at various school stages along with the competencies required at each stage. Various states in India will adopt these standards. NPE 2020 clearly states that promotions and salary increases will not occur based on the length of tenure or seniority, but only on the basis of teacher appraisal.

180 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Teacher Absenteeism Teachers being away from classrooms, being absent without sanctioned leave, and other teacher vacancies are persistent problems in schools in India (GoI MHRD, 2019). Addressing this issue, NEP 2020 states that To prevent the large amounts of time spent currently by teachers on nonteaching activities, teachers will not be engaged any longer in work that is not directly related to teaching; in particular, teachers will not be involved in strenuous administrative tasks and more than a rationalized minimum time for mid-day meal related work, so that they may fully concentrate on their teaching-learning duties. (p. 21) This suggests that teacher absenteeism in NEP 2020 is addressed primarily as a function of official duties assigned to teachers that are not related to teaching itself. In other words, teachers being away from classrooms, absent without leave, or other teacher vacancies may be assumed in NEP 2020 to be nonteaching activities, which will be limited at least from the school perspective. Additionally, any teacher vacancies will be filled at the earliest especially in disadvantages areas. However, NEP 2020 does not make any comment on hiring contract teachers which according to the Draft NEP 2019 would be soon discontinued. Teacher Attitude NEP 2020 expects teachers to be sensitive towards needs and the holistic development of students. Students should feel welcome and cared for in a safe and stimulating environment where teachers teach in a fun, collaborative, and interactive manner to engage students and enhance their “critical thinking and more holistic, inquiry-based, discovery-based, discussion-based, and analysis-based learning” (p. 12). For such positive learning to happen in schools, NEP 2020 states, “To help ensure that schools have positive learning environments, the role expectations of principals and teachers will explicitly include developing a caring and inclusive culture at their schools, for effective learning and the benefit of all stakeholders” (p. 21). To ensure a positive teacher attitude, NEP 2020 plans that schools will strictly adhere to a 1:30 teacher–student ratio. The assumption being that teachers managing more than 30 students per class carry additional burdens, responsibilities, expectations, and pressures that lead to more negative teacher attitudes. Teacher Accountability NEP 2020 recognizes the contribution that teachers make in reforming pedagogy to improve student learning and therefore gives teachers full autonomy in selecting appropriate pedagogy.

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

181

A commendable policy, NEP 2020 has made sweeping changes to bring education in India at par with global education, and yet at the same time maintaining Indian culture and values. The curriculum changes, in particular, lead to experiential learning, a key element in internationally legitimized or global education practice. The changes proposed by the new policy places high expectations on teachers. Unlike the media that blames teachers for poor student outcomes in India (Ramachandran et al., 2005), NEP holds dismissal conditions of teacher education, recruitment, deployment, and service conditions for lack of teacher motivation as an indicator of teacher quality. NEP 2020 is structured to empower teachers through the suggested reforms discussed above; however, there are areas overlooked or not clearly clarified by the policy, starting with the teacher workforce. First, there is no mention of teacher participation in the curriculum changes made. How will teachers meet the requirements without being involved in the process? Second, although research has shown that multilingualism has great cognitive benefits to young students (Diamond, 2010), it will need a sound implementation plan backed by sustainable funds to train teachers. Neither a fully developed implementation plan nor a sustainable infrastructure for implementing the plan are clearly specified in the NEP 2020. Also, teachers who move or are transferred from one state to another for personal reasons will find it difficult to teach in the required local language of the state. This may result in loss of quality teachers. Third, for salary increases as recommended by NEP 2020, there is no clear path as to where the funds will come from. Fourth, the reforms suggested by NEP 2020 need trained teachers. Who will train them? How and by whom will master instructors or trainers be selected? In all, if we really think that teachers are the fulcrum, India does not have enough well-trained teachers, from preschool all the way to graduate school, to realize the changes that are needed. Lighter and more streamlined regulation, which is in the NEP, will help. But there are still incentive problems that hinder the performance of teachers, even if they are trained. A critical aim of NEP 2020 is the increase in expenditure on education. It has been proposed that the expenditure will increase to 6% of GDP though there is no clear commitment that will hold the government accountable. And, even the 6% seems very low if India wants to create a globally developed country through education by increasing the quality of teachers amongst other proposed reforms. The NEP 2020 is clear on the destination but – like NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, the Draft NEP 2016, and the Draft NEP 2019 – not on its journey (Nayyar, 2020). Nevertheless, despite its limitations. NEP 2020 has a noble aim to bring respectability and credibility to the teaching profession on which it acknowledges is based the future of the country.

Conceptual Framework Alignment Where does NEP 2020 fit within the overall conceptual framework related to the educational policymaking and implemention process in India? The de facto

182 Education Policies for Teacher Quality education–economy link, scripting of NEP 2020 to fit with broader legitimacyseeking goals, and the decoupled implementation process of NEP 2020 each suggest that NEP 2020 follows the model of Indian national education policymaking established in earlier chapters. De Facto Education–Economy Link in NEP 2020 The NEP 2020 openly voices the education–economy link where it specifically states, “Providing universal access to quality education is the key to India’s continued ascent, and leadership on the global stage in terms of economic growth” (p. 3). NEP 2020 also asserts that “Education is a great leveler and is the best tool for achieving economic and social mobility” (p. 4). The reference to education as the great leveler is reminiscent of a core figure in US educational development, Horace Mann, who famously proclaimed that, “Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance wheel of the social machinery” (Mann, 1848). Although Mann’s point was more to the value of meritocracy in U.S. education, the use of this idea in the NEP 2020 suggests an alignment with international expectations about the outcomes of universal or mass education systems broadly speaking (Mandler, 2020; Tait, 2018). NEP 2020 uses words like “world” and “global” to show globalization and global competencies are a primary concern in the education of India’s children. India’s goal is to attain Goal 4 (SDG4) by 2030 for which NEP 2020 justifies the proposal of revamping the entire education system. This suggests that one of the main reasons for NEP 2020 is to enhance India’s role in the international market. NEP 2020 (p. 3) states, The global education development agenda reflected in the Goal 4 (SDG4) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by India in 2015 – seeks to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030. Such a lofty goal will require the entire education system to be reconfigured to support and foster learning, so that all of the critical targets and goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development can be achieved. Then in the closing statements of NEP 2020, the importance of a knowledge economy is highlighted as is the national and international contextualization of the education–economy link, as follows (p. 45): Knowledge creation and research are critical in growing and sustaining a large and vibrant economy, uplifting society, and continuously inspiring a nation to achieve even greater heights. Indeed, some of the most prosperous civilizations (such as India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece) to the modern era (such as the United States, Germany, Israel, South Korea, and Japan), were/are strong knowledge societies that attained intellectual

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

183

and material wealth in large part through celebrated and fundamental contributions to new knowledge in the realm of science as well as art, language, and culture that enhanced and uplifted not only their own civilizations but others around the globe. These opening and closing statements align NEP 2020 with all of the legitimization and legitimacy-seeking references at once. In the earlier section (p. 3) the alignment of NEP 2020 with the Sustainable Development Goal focused on education creates a recognition that international declarations such as the SDGs and other multilateral statements on education are not only relevant to India, but vital to “growing and sustaining a large and vibrant economy” (p. 45). References to India’s growing role as a “knowledge economy” are present in NEP 2020 as well. The thread of knowledge economy development from the Draft NEP 2019 to the NEP 2020 is significant because it suggests that the education–economy link is no longer de facto but is instead increasingly de jure. India as a knowledge economy is specifically referenced in relation to higher education (p. 33) and technology use in education (p. 56). In the first instance, the NEP 2020 says, “As India moves towards becoming a knowledge economy and society, more and more young Indians are likely to aspire for higher education” (p. 33). The idea is that education is a key to developing and creating new knowledge, but new knowledge is also part of the development of industry, technology, medical, and military innovation (Brown et al, 2008). These are areas where higher education in India is expected (or hoped) to excel according to NEP 2020. The second reference to the knowledge economy in NEP 2020 relates to technology use in education. The bidirectional relationship between technology and education is highlighted in NEP 2020 as follows: “India is a global leader in information and communication technology…[which will]…transform the entire nation into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy” (p. 56). The NEP 2020 specifically references the Digital India Campaign as an example. This connection between technology and education is important to establishing the education–economy link as well because as the digital economy increasingly becomes the primary mode of national and global commerce, India is increasingly positioned to be the leader in economic development spawned in the digital realm. As such, following the logic of the NEP 2020, education – and specifically technology enhanced or facilitated education – will increase the knowledge economy in India as well as establish Indian among the BRICS and in other international communities as the economic leader. Another key component of the de facto education–economy link is the alignment of India with the global testing and accountability movement. This is firmly achieved by NEP 2020. The National Testing Agency (NTA) has already been discussed and its role in providing entrance examinations and higher education assessments is discussed again in NEP 2020. The NTA is also

184 Education Policies for Teacher Quality identified as the organization responsible for testing teachers in preparation and as part of professional development. But, the role of education in India as a performance assessment, which may be used to predict or estimate the productivity potential of generations of Indian students is more complex. On page 19 of the NEP 2020, the establishment of a National Assessment Centre called PARAKH (Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development) is explained. In short PARAKH would be a standard-setting body under MHRD that fulfils the basic objectives of setting norms, standards, and guidelines for student assessment and evaluation for all recognized school boards of India, guiding the State Achievement Survey (SAS) and undertaking the National Achievement Survey (NAS), monitoring achievement of learning outcomes in the country, and encouraging and helping school boards to shift their assessment patterns towards meeting the skill requirements of the 21st century in consonance with the stated objectives of this Policy. (p. 19) One of the key goals of the global testing and accountability movement is the establishment of a universal set of education standards to serve as a baseline for student, teacher, and educational system evaluation (Lingard et al., 2013). This is what PARAKH would be as the National Assessment Centre in India. Legitimacy-Seeking Script of NEP 2020 NEP 2020 is as much a legitimacy-seeking mechanism for India’s educational system as it is a genuine framework for Indian educational policy and reform. As a script for seeking legitimacy not only with the domestic population of educational stakeholders, but also with the regional and global economic, political, and educational communities, NEP 2020 reflects several characteristics as identified in the organization’s literature (Tallberg & Zürn, 2019). As outlined in previous chapters, there are three indicator of legitimacy-seeking, which include (1) intensity or frequency of legitimization (or delegitimization) claims (Zaller, 1992); (2) the evaluative tone of communicated messages where negative messages (delegitimation) tend to carry more weight than positive messages (legitimation) (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979); and (3) the strength of communicated messages in relation to existing contextualized attitudes (Druckman, 2001). In NEP 2020, the intensity or frequency of legitimization claims is easy to identify. For example, as already pointed out in relation to the de facto education–economy link, NEP 2020 makes clear references to international declarations (e.g., SDGs), to glorified historical periods in India and nearby regions (e.g., India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece) (p. 45), to other countries often identified as successfully developed nations (e.g., United States, Germany, Israel, South Korea, and Japan) (p. 45), to standards development

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

185

for students, teachers, and schools (pp. 19–20), and to the role of India as a burgeoning knowledge economy (pp. 33, 56). Similar, however to all of the other nation-level policy frameworks reviewed in relation to teacher quality (e. g., NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, Draft NEP 2016, Draft NEP 2019), the NEP 2020 references the goal of achieving either equal or equitable education on average approximately every other page. Even more legitimizing is the discussion about quality education in NEP 2020. Quality education is mentioned approximately 2–3 times per page in NEP 2020 on average. This frequency of the equitable, equal, and quality education discussion suggests that the legitimization claims most relevant to Indian education aligns with the Education for All (EFA), Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) declarations in their focus on the universal provision of equitable and quality education for all. From an international legitimacy perspective, NEP 2020 also is unique in its reference to providing this equitable and quality education to Indian citizens across scheduled castes (see, for example, pages 24, 25, and 27). While all countries experience social, economic, cultural, and political stratification among their populations, the overt recognition of the role that scheduled castes and tribes in India have contributed to the institutionalized inequalities in educational access, opportunity, and performance within and across the country is important to note. A key component of this recognition is summarized in one of the key goals of NEP 2020, which says that education in India should be guided by “respect for diversity and respect for the local context in all curriculum, pedagogy, and policy, always keeping in mind that education is a concurrent subject” (p. 5). While this recognition of inequalities that persist in Indian education is not as overtly delegitimizing as the Draft NEP 2016’s Chapter 2, the acknowledgement of uniquely Indian stratification factors and the overt legitimization of equitable and quality education for all in NEP 2020 suggests that the evaluative tone of the national education policy script is broadly legitimizing. It is also the focus on diversity and respect for local contexts and languages in India that creates a strong communicated message in relation to existing contextualized attitudes. In contrast to the contextualized attitudes in NCF 2005, which were located more in the idealized or aspirational version of what Indian education and society could become, the contextualized attitudes of NEP 2020 leave much more leeway in understanding unique or diverse perspectives, attitudes, and educational approaches throughout India. And, the focus on allowing for flexibility in selecting course progression or in learning through one’s home or regional language rather than a state-mandated culture and language suggests just how far NEP 2020 has come. For example, it is established early in NEP 2020 that (p. 16) All curriculum and pedagogy, from the foundational stage onwards, will be redesigned to be strongly rooted in the Indian and local context and ethos in terms of culture, traditions, heritage, customs, language, philosophy,

186 Education Policies for Teacher Quality geography, ancient and contemporary knowledge, societal and scientific needs, indigenous and traditional ways of learning etc. – in order to ensure that education is maximally relatable, relevant, interesting, and effective for our students. Stories, arts, games, sports, examples, problems, etc. will be chosen as much as possible to be rooted in the Indian and local geographic context. Ideas, abstractions, and creativity will indeed best flourish when learning is thus rooted. The contextualized attitudes that focus on the importance of equitable and quality education in India also recognize that equity and quality are best served through culturally relevant and rooted education. The focus on culturally relevant education (i.e., culturally responsive teaching) is a growing global phenomenon that, while not new, is newly invigorated in educational policies in national systems worldwide (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014). By creating a clear message of alignment with culturally relevant education and pedagogy, NEP 2020 also legitimizes education in India. Decoupled Implementation Process of NEP 2020 Although there has not been enough time since the announcement of NEP 2020 to track whether implementation of teacher quality reforms stemming from this national policy have been implemented, the trend from previous national education policy frameworks in the 21st century suggest that implementation of NEP 2020 will be decoupled from the framework itself. NEP 2020 is a high-level document, and as a result the implementation details in this national policy are likely to be thin. But, compared to the Draft NEP 2019, the NEP 2020’s “Making It Happen” section is comparatively underdeveloped. There is a call to increase overall funding for education in India in terms of an increase in the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) expended on education in India from around 4.43% of GDP to 6% “at the earliest” (p. 61). The remainder of the financing section of “Part IV. Making It Happen” is a combination of critiques of past implementation failures and vague commitments to the kinds of infrastructure and resources that will be committed to education in India (see pp. 60–61). NEP 2020 highlights the intended focus of educational spending, which includes universal access, learning resources, teacher workforce, teacher development, and “support for all key initiatives towards equitable high-quality education for underprivileged and socio-economically disadvantaged groups” (p. 61). While the priority of providing equitable quality education is clear, the catch-all statement is less that specific, and it would be difficult to make decisions according to this policy statement where the equitable or quality elements of a particular situation were more complicated than obvious. One approach to ensuring the infrastructure necessary to implement the policy recommendations in NEP 2020 that is new in this version of the

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

187

national education policy is the call to rejuvenate, actively promote and support “private philanthropic activity in the education sector” (p. 61). There is a caveat that private philanthropic financial support should not be confounded with the commercialization or privatization of education in India in the paragraph that follows, but the overall decoupling of education from infrastructure in the implementation phase seems to be confirmed. There are no specific infrastructure, facility, resource, or funding strategies connected with specific aspects of the education plan laid out in NEP 2020. For example, teacher training and professional development alone is a costly, but crucial endeavor in raising both the quality of education in India and the equitable distribution, access, and opportunity to learn across the country. Yet, there are no specific infrastructure plans or revenue sources connected to teacher training and professional development, nor are there coupled infrastructure details linked to any of the “key long-term thrust areas for financing” outlined on page 61. Capacity in the implementation process of the Indian national education policy cycle includes the development of knowledge and skills relevant to both the individuals and groups responsible for implementing NEP 2020 as well as the target populations on the delivery and receiving end of NEP 2020 initiatives. Implementation in a nation as complex and varied as India is not an easy task and requires multiple levels and contexts of coordination among national, state, and local authorities. It also includes many different community, nonprofit, or otherwise adjacent organizations and groups to take a leadership role in the implementation of NEP 2020. Of course, all of these involved entities must have the knowledge and skill capacity necessary to implement the NEP 2020 policies as outlined in the national plan. Likewise, the outcomes of implementing these policies needs to be operationalized in order to understand the knowledge and skills that would be expected of the administrators, teachers, and students targeted by the NEP 2020 policies. Yet, none of this is outlined in the NEP 2020 document. In other words, knowledge and skill capacity necessary to implement NEP 2020 is not articulated beyond an acknowledgement that “implementation committees of experts in cooperation and consultation with other relevant Ministries will be set up at both the Central and State levels to develop detailed implementation plans for each aspect of this Policy” (p. 62). It is also asserted that “in the decade of 2030–2040, the entire policy will be in an operational mode” (p. 62). Although this is perhaps enough to assume it will happen in other national education systems where the infrastructure and capacity-building mechanisms are already in place, the experience of NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, the Draft NEP 2016, and the Draft NEP 2019 suggest otherwise for India. Finally, the decoupling of the NEP 2020 from its implementation is again confirmed by the lack of a sustainable implementation team or leader from the targeted stakeholder groups for each of the “key long-term thrust areas” (p. 61). Although there were apparently a large cadre of local, state, national, and other community voices and representatives who took part in the development

188 Education Policies for Teacher Quality and articulation of the NEP 2020, it is not clear how they will be involved in its implementation. At the most, the NEP 2020 asserts that the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) be strengthened and empowered to mandate implementation of the national education policy (p. 60). Unfortunately for India, mandating implementation from a central source of authority only works if there is a consequence for not fulfilling the mandate. In most countries’ national education systems, these sorts of centralized mandates come with funding incentives or consequences involving the reduction or removal of funding (Clune, 1993). Since education in India is already widely underfunded, especially for the public system of education in most states (Aiyar & Kapur, 2019), the mandates of CABE may be less effective than the NEP 2020 suggests. What NEP 2020 Says About Teacher Quality Reform Teacher quality has been defined many different ways by the various national policy frameworks on teachers and education issued in the 21st century. A trend across NCF 2005, NCFTE 2009, the Draft NEP 2016, the Draft NEP 2019, and NEP 2020 has been an increasing balance in traditional teacher quality and non-traditional teacher quality measures. Teacher certification has not been as much of a focus in the Indian national education system as it has been in other developing country contexts (e.g., Saudi Arabia, see Wiseman et al., 2018). Instead, the focus in India has been primarily on achieving equitable, quality education for all in accordance with international declarations like EFA, the MDGs, and the SDGs (Mohanty, 2018). Teachers are still often the representatives of India’s national education system who are most frequently blamed for Indian education failures and at the same time identified as ones most capable of improving the equitable access, performance, and quality of education nationwide. In other words, teachers in India – as in the rest of the world – are the scapegoats and the saviors of education. But, there is still little direct evidence in India that suggests how or why teacher quality matters (Jain et al., 2018). In the next chapter, the connections between educational performance and both traditional and nontraditional teacher quality will be analyzed using representatively sampled empirical data.

References Aiyar, Y., & Kapur, A. (2019). The centralization vs decentralization tug of war and the emerging narrative of fiscal federalism for social policy in India. Regional & Federal Studies, 29(2), 187–217. Allender, T. (2009). Learning abroad: The colonial educational experiment in India, 1813–1919. Paedagogica Historica, 45(6), 727–741. Brown, P., Lauder, H., Ashton, D., Yingje, W., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2008). Education, globalisation and the future of the knowledge economy. European Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 131–156.

Equitable Education in Teacher Quality

189

Chakrabarty, R. (2020, August 20). From 10+2 to 5+3+3+4: What does NEP’s big shift in school education mean? India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/educationtoday/featurephilia/story/from-10-2-to-5-3-3-4-what-does-nep-s-big-shift-in-schooleducation-mean-1713346-2020-08-20. Chari, R. (2020, August 30). NEP 2020: Empowering the teacher. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/edutrends-india/nep-2020-empoweringthe-teacher/. Clune, W. H. (1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 233–254. Diamond, J. (2010). The benefits of multilingualism. Science, 330(6002), 332–333. Dixit, S. (2020, July 31). NEP 2020: A lot to look forward to in the Indian Education Sector. The Quint. https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/nep-2020-a-lot-tolook-forward-to-in-the-indian-education-sector. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066. French, G. (2013). Early literacy and numeracy matters. An Leanbh Óg, 7, 31–45. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2016). Some Inputs for Draft National Education Policy 2016. MHRD. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_ files/mhrd/files/nep/inputs_Draft_NEP_2016.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2019). Draft National Education Policy EP 2019. https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_ files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf. Government of India Ministry of Human Resource and Development. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/ mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf. Jain, M., Mehendale, A., Mukhopadhyay, R., Sarangapani, P. M., & Winch, C. (Eds.). (2018). School education in India: Market, state and quality. New York: Taylor & Francis. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. Kumar, D. (2020). Tracking the Progress of a Child from Enrolment to Completion of Secondary Education in India. In Universal Secondary Education in India (pp. 221– 243). Singapore: Springer. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing Regimes, Accountabilities and Education Policy: Commensurate Global and National Developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539–556. Mandler, P. (2020). The crisis of the meritocracy: Britain’s transition to mass education since the Second World War. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth annual report to the massachusetts board of education, in the republic and the school: Horace Mann and the education of free men. New York: Teachers College Press. Menon, N. (2020, September 8). NEP 2020: Elitist and corporatized education under Hindu Rashtra. Kafila. https://kafila.online/2020/09/08/nep-2020-elitist-andcorporatized-education-under-hindu-rashtra/.

190 Education Policies for Teacher Quality Mohanty, A. (2018). Education for sustainable development: A conceptual model of sustainable education for India. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 7(9), 2242–2255. Munn, P. (1994). The early development of literacy and numeracy skills. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2(1), 5–18. Nayyar, D. (2020, August 13). National education policy: The devil lies in implementation. Mint. https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/national-educationpolicy-2020-the-devil-lies-in-implementation-11597328630354.html. Ramachandran, V., Pal, M., Jain, S., Shekar, S., & Sharma, J. (2005). Teacher motivation in India. Discussion Paper, Azim Premji Foundation, Bangalore, 96–103 Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. Seth, S. (2007). Subject lessons: The western education of colonial India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Subba, D. (2014). Democratic values and democratic approach in teaching: A perspective. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12A), 37–40. Tait, G. (2018). Making sense of mass education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tallberg, J., & Zürn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations, 14, 581–606. Wiseman, A. W., Davidson, P., & Brereton, J. (2018). Teacher certification reforms in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. In M. Akiba & G. K. LeTendre (Eds.), International handbook on teacher quality and policy. New York: Routledge. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Part III

Moving Beyond Policies for Indian Teacher Quality

9

The Effects of Traditional and NonTraditional Teacher Quality on Student Achievement in India

There is a global consensus that quality education depends upon quality teaching (Azam & Kingdon, 2014; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2003), and ample evidence broadly confirms that teacher quality impacts student performance (Abe, 2014; Fong-Yee & Normore, 2006). In fact, according to some studies, teachers may be the single most important school-related factor in student achievement (Goldhaber, 2016). Teachers play both symbolic and practical roles in schools and are the focus of education policy in national education systems worldwide. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) asserts that of those school factors that policymakers can and often do influence, “teacher quality is the single most influential factor in determining student achievement” (2005, p. 2). Not surprisingly, there is an intense focus among policymakers and researchers on teachers and their impact on student learning, achievement, and transition to productive citizenship, often to the relative exclusion of other factors found to comprise a “quality” education (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006, p.1053). Surprisingly, there is no common standard for either defining or measuring teacher quality, and both researchers and policymakers around the world use different approaches (Churchward & Willis, 2019). For example, in the United States, the importance of “highly qualified” teachers is reflected in national educational agendas and U.S. legislation such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 as subject matter certified, university graduates (Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2016). Whereas, in China, teachers are expected to be continuously engaged in professional development activities, presumably leading them to become higher quality teachers who can better contribute to their students’ achievement (Robinson, 2008). In India, the importance of high-quality teachers is embedded in national education policies and decision-making. For example, in 2004, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in India revised the existing National Curriculum Framework (NCF) to improve teacher quality by revamping teacher education. This was part of a vision to prepare every child in the country to grow in India’s fast-changing labor market and participate in the global economy (NCERT, 2005). Accordingly, the Indian Minister of

194 Moving Beyond Policies for Teacher Quality State for Human Resource Development extended the duration of teacher education nationwide in an attempt to improve teacher quality (Nanda, 2017). Unfortunately, duration of training does not necessarily equate to improved quality, and NCERT does not provide a well-defined concept of a “highly qualified” teacher to evaluate education policies aimed at improving teacher quality in India. Although there is some research on teacher quality in India (e.g., Azam & Kingdon, 2014; Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2011; Nanda, 2017), research provides limited clarity on the definition of teacher quality in Indian education and no standard measure of teacher quality in Indian education, broadly speaking. For example, some research on teacher quality in India has proposed using the VAM (value-added model) approach (Azam & Kingdon, 2014), but VAM has not been adopted more widely either in policy, practice, or research in India. Teacher qualifications, teacher certification, and professional development, however, are more widely used as indicators of teacher quality in both national and local education policy and practice worldwide (Goe & Stickler, 2008; Kumar, 2019; Wiseman & Al-bakr, 2013). The focus on these traditional measures of teacher quality ignores that there are other non-traditional teacher quality variables, which may have a much larger impact on Indian student outcomes. As one of the largest economies and educational systems in the world (Raut, 2017), it is surprising that there is little data on teacher quality in India. However, for the first time in 2009, two Indian states, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh, participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The “embarrassing” results of PISA 2009 (Chhapia, 2013, p. 1; OECD, 2010) ranked India second to last amongst 73 countries, and resulted in the country opting out of the 2012 and 2015 rounds of the international assessment (Lockheed et al., 2015). Figures 9.1–9.3 show India’s ranking among the 73 participating countries, with only Kyrgyzstan scoring lower that India in mathematics, science, and reading. Figures 9.1–9.3 also show the rankings of the two Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh alongside India. India’s PISA 2009 results revealed that not more than 15% of the children (15 years of age) who participated in the testing performed at the basic level (OECD, 2010). Furthermore, publicizing India’s poor performance in PISA 2009 in the media created a public “shock” over India’s education system (Lahiri, 2012). For example, an article in a leading Indian newspaper, The Times of India, stated that an eighth-grade Indian student is at a similar level to a third-grade South Korean student in mathematics, and an eighth-grade Indian student in reading is, on average, equivalent to a Shanghai secondgrader. Following these publicized results, questions immediately arose related to the quality of Indian teachers, and teachers were blamed for the poor performance of students (Lahiri, 2012; Rao, 2013). The policy cycle of poor student achievement leading to teacher blaming and shaming, which then leads to teacher-focused policies and standards

0

100

200

300

Figure 9.1 Average Student Math Achievement Scores by Country, PISA 2009.

Shanghai, China Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Taiwan Finland Switzerland Liechtenstein Japan Canada Netherlands Macao, China New Zealand Belgium Australia Germany Estonia Iceland Denmark Slovenia Norway France Slovak Republic Austria Poland Sweden Czech Republic United Kingdom Hungary Luxembourg United States Ireland Portugal Spain Italy Latvia Lithuania Russian Federation Greece Malta Croatia International Mean Israel Turkey Serbia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Uruguay Romania United Arab Emirates Chile Mauritius Thailand Mexico Trinidad and Tobago Costa Rica Kazakhstan Malaysia Montenegro Miranda, Venezuela Moldova, Rep. of Argentina Jordan Brazil Colombia Georgia Albania Tunisia Indonesia Qatar Peru Panama Tamil Nadu, India India (2009 States) Himachal Pradesh, India Kyrgyzstan

400

500

600

599.5873 562.5791 554.672 545.9491 543.1561 540.418 535.0264 533.6883 529.192 526.3427 525.8939 525.035 519.8727 515.6946 514.5544 512.099 512.0336 507.3673 503.226 501.0395 497.5454 496.7549 496.7076 495.3798 494.2307 493.8699 492.5683 492.521 489.9584 488.1766 487.3506 487.3271 487.2701 483.7105 483.2503 481.4847 476.4921 467.9225 465.4492 462.5997 460.6449 449.4664 447.3722 445.6609 442.619 430.7654 427.8899 427.2268 426.4127 420.7062 420.6786 419.6858 418.6214 418.5079 414.4814 409.8774 405.5071 404.2182 402.7139 397.4217 397.3944 387.6009 386.6385 386.0491 380.7217 379.6627 376.8412 371.4648 371.1096 368.4798 364.7894 360.2699 349.5356 348.4976 339.3483 331.1929

Student Achievement in India 195

0

100

200

300

Figure 9.2 Average Student Science Achievement Scores by Country, PISA 2009.

Shanghai, China Finland Hong Kong-China Singapore Japan Korea New Zealand Canada Estonia Australia Netherlands Germany Taiwan Liechtenstein Switzerland United Kingdom Slovenia Macao, China Ireland Poland Belgium Hungary United States Czech Republic Norway Denmark France Iceland Sweden Austria Portugal Latvia Lithuania Slovak Republic Italy Spain Croatia Luxembourg Russian Federation Greece Malta International Mean Israel Turkey Chile Serbia Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Costa Rica Romania Uruguay Thailand Malaysia Miranda, Venezuela Mauritius Mexico Jordan Moldova, Rep. of Trinidad and Tobago Brazil Montenegro Colombia Argentina Tunisia Kazakhstan Albania Indonesia Qatar Panama Azerbaijan Georgia Peru Tamil Nadu, India India (2009 States) Kyrgyzstan Himachal Pradesh, India

400

500

600

574.9537 553.6443 549.0903 541.5379 539.7316 536.9358 531.8964 528.2383 527.5742 527.5066 522.6339 520.2056 520.0772 518.5018 517.0095 513.6889 511.2549 510.3093 508.2677 507.4326 506.9133 502.2476 501.8242 500.8206 499.1366 498.9904 497.8581 495.6023 494.8899 494.3429 492.8555 492.8094 490.9942 490.9146 489.2809 488.4244 486.8437 483.1795 478.5926 469.3762 461.3761 458.1158 455.6886 453.8742 447.6803 442.8573 439.2365 437.3628 430.4715 428.0784 427.6954 425.0146 422.2369 421.6529 416.7393 415.4952 415.2354 413.1806 410.3784 405.6358 401.5027 401.3419 401.1503 400.7536 400.6491 390.0552 382.0978 378.6807 376.0543 373.6807 373.2022 369.0786 347.8003 345.5041 329.5696 325.2647

196 Moving Beyond Policies for Teacher Quality

0

100

200

300

Figure 9.3 Average Student Reading Achievement Scores by Country, PISA 2009.

Shanghai, China Korea Finland Hong Kong-China Singapore Canada New Zealand Japan Australia Netherlands Belgium Norway Iceland Estonia Poland Switzerland United States Liechtenstein Sweden Germany Ireland France Denmark Taiwan Hungary United Kingdom Portugal Macao, China Italy Latvia Slovenia Greece Spain Czech Republic Slovak Republic Croatia Israel Luxembourg Austria Lithuania Turkey Russian Federation International Mean Chile Costa Rica Serbia Malta United Arab Emirates Bulgaria Uruguay Mexico Romania Miranda, Venezuela Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Malaysia Colombia Brazil Montenegro Mauritius Jordan Tunisia Indonesia Argentina Kazakhstan Moldova, Rep. of Albania Georgia Qatar Panama Peru Azerbaijan Tamil Nadu, India India (2009 States) Himachal Pradesh, India Kyrgyzstan

400

500

555.5842 538.5449 535.5694 533.119 525.9648 523.9591 521.1298 520.3044 514.8222 508.1992 506.0709 503.0985 500.5733 500.3432 500.1981 500.1675 499.7996 498.4257 497.7079 497.2816 495.9401 495.3661 495.2494 494.9559 494.2865 493.9524 489.1076 486.4018 486.3324 483.5472 482.7662 481.8291 480.9529 478.327 477.475 475.8268 475.0054 471.1547 470.0181 467.9608 464.7785 459.4349 455.5635 449.6264 442.7116 442.328 442.1508 431.4751 428.7424 425.6931 425.0583 424.4139 422.339 421.7119 416.3016 413.5217 412.9972 411.5744 407.0327 407.0139 404.9933 403.8395 401.7667 397.7453 390.8605 388.206 384.8553 374.9775 371.6458 370.6967 369.8479 361.115 335.9436 334.1068 317.9164 314.2564

600

Student Achievement in India 197

198 Moving Beyond Policies for Teacher Quality implementation, is a frequent phenomenon in systems that regularly participate in international educational assessments (LeTendre & Wiseman, 2015). But, for India this was a new experience following PISA 2009. Even if teacher quality in India is a contributing factor to Indian students’ low performance, Indian policymakers and teacher preparation professionals need more information on what teacher quality in India is, how to empirically measure it, and both valid and reliable estimates of the impact of teacher quality on student achievement. In Indian national education policy since the early 2000s, there has been a decided focus on building traditional teacher quality, through increased qualifications and the certification of teachers, but no empirical studies have investigated the differences in teacher quality in India. This research, therefore, investigates how traditional and non-traditional measures of teacher quality are differently related to student performance in India. This question addresses Indian policymakers’ assumptions – as demonstrated in Indian national education policies – about the impact of traditional (rather than non-traditional) teacher quality on student achievement. Addressing these assumptions is necessary for Indian policymakers, educators, and the public to make informed decisions regarding the nature of reforms needed to prepare and support high quality teachers in India who can consistently and measurably enhance student performance.

Traditional vs. Non-traditional Measures of Teacher Quality Teacher quality is traditionally measured using simple descriptions of teachers’ qualifications, certification, educational credentials, and most frequently by their students’ average achievement scores (Wiseman & Al-bakr, 2013). But, these measures fall short by confounding the characteristics of teacher quality with its effects. For example, qualifications, certification, and credentialing may be better identified as characteristics of teacher quality, while student achievement is more likely to be an effect or outcome of teacher quality. There are other indicators of teacher quality that may be more reflective of a teachers’ quality in doing their jobs rather than static documentations of quality, which comprise all of the traditional measures. Several international studies have found an association between student achievement and teacher qualification, if the qualification is content related, but research in India varies from the international results. For example, a crossnational study on teacher quality found that students whose teachers are certified in mathematics, have three or more years of experience teaching mathematics, and are also mathematics-major holders have a measurably positive effect on student outcomes compared to teachers qualified in subjects other than mathematics (Akiba et al., 2007). International evidence consistently supports the assertion that subject-matter knowledge positively associates with student outcomes. Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) measured subject-matter knowledge of mathematics with a master’s or a bachelor’s degree in mathematics. Similarly, Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997) measured subject knowledge in terms of

Student Achievement in India

199

whether the teacher had a mathematics degree at the bachelor’s level and whether the teacher could answer a mathematics quiz in a teacher survey. A study conducted in five countries (South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Namibia) using the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) II data revealed that teacher content knowledge plays a big role in impacting student outcomes (Spreen & Fancsali, 2005). Studies in India, however, have found that students’ background and school type may mediate the effects of teacher qualification. For example, a study in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India showed that mathematics teachers in government schools have on average three years or more experience than mathematics teachers in private schools (Singh & Sarkar, 2012), and that there is a far larger percentage of teachers in government schools who hold a diploma, bachelor’s, or master’s degree compared to private schools. However, the number of bachelor’s and master’s degrees held by teachers in areas other than teaching is higher in private schools. Surprisingly, Indian students’ mathematics scores are higher in private schools than in government schools despite the fact that government teachers demonstrate more of the traditional measures of teacher quality (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). The question then arises as to why learning outcomes are higher in some Indian schools when there are “higher quality” teachers in other schools. There is contested evidence that teacher certification impacts student achievement. Darling-Hammond (2000) conducted a state level analysis using data from the United States to examine the relationship between certification status and student achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Although this study revealed that certification status is an important determinant of student outcomes, other research finds that there is no association between teacher certification and student achievement (Ballou & Podgursky, 2000). In fact, Ballou & Podgursky (2000) commented that certification prevents intelligent and capable people from entering the teaching profession. Likewise, there is contradictory evidence that teacher professional development influences student achievement in India compared to international evidence. For example, a report by Wenglinsky (2002) stated that students whose teachers receive professional development perform better than students whose teachers do not receive any professional development, especially in mathematics, where there was a difference of one full grade. Other international studies, have also shown that professional development impacts teachers’ content knowledge and teaching practices, thus significantly impacting student achievement (Polly et al., 2015). In India, however, Azam and Kingdon (2014) found that there is no association between teacher in-service training and Indian student achievement. They conclude that there may be unnecessary emphasis on teacher in-service training by Indian policymakers. Other measures of teacher quality are less static and more active than teacher qualifications, certification, and professional development. These non-traditional measures suggest that the quality of teachers is not a product of their

200 Moving Beyond Policies for Teacher Quality credentialing, qualifications, or other static individual accomplishments, but are instead a product of the ways they understand their students individually and as part of a community, which are often indicated by teachers’ behavior in relation to school climate. These behaviors, such as absenteeism and teacher attitude, also may indicate the ways that teachers are committed to their students and the responsibilities of teaching. Studies have shown absenteeism lowers student performance and is also an economic concern for schools (Finlayson, 2009; Porres, 2016). In fact, evdience shows that the more days a teacher is absent or out of the classroom, the more negatively it affects student performance (Miller, 2012). Teachers’ behaviors can reflect their attitudes and influence their school’s climate for learning and performance as well. For example, teachers who project a feeling of trust in their students’ ability to do mathematics communicate confidence in the pupils’ future performance, leading to a positive growth in mathematics learning (Lee & Loeb, 2000). During instruction, a positive reaction by a teacher rather than a neutral response facilitates student learning because it encourages students to participate in class discussions (Centra & Potter, 1980). In respect to student–teacher relationships, evidence suggests that a positive teacher’s attitude also helps develop a strong rapport between a teacher and student, impacting student outcomes (Downey, 2008; Gallagher et al., 2013).

Rationale, Design, and Data Human capital theory and neoinstitutional theory are heuristic tools that can each be used to frame ways that education policies and teacher quality interact across levels and cultures. These theoretical frameworks also suggest broader political, cultural, and economic contexts for teacher quality in national educational systems, like India’s. For example, while human capital theory provides a framework for understanding economic investment in India as a tool for building teacher quality (Johnes et al., 2017), neoinstitutional theory provides explanations for the development and impact of globally shared norms, bounded rationality, and loose coupling (Wiseman et al., 2014), which may be used to understand why India follows a globally legitimized model of educational improvement by focusing on teacher quality. For example, the Indian education policy focus on teacher quality may be an example of global isomorphism as more countries worldwide focus on teacher quality as a way to improve student outcomes (Akiba & LeTendre, 2017). Or, from a human capital perspective, it could be a solutions-oriented approach to improving student performance (e.g., Bold et al., 2019). While a neoinstitutional framework might suggest that policies on teacher quality in India may isomorphically develop to align with global norms, regardless of their practical outcomes, human capital theory explains why economic returns on investment in teacher quality explains policymakers’ de facto education–economy link in India. From a human capital perspective, investment in teachers’ human capital results in improved student scores, a globally

Student Achievement in India

201

competitive and skilled workforce, and future economic returns for both the individual and the nation (Mincer, 1981). This provides an explanation for why Indian educational policymakers focus on teacher quality improvement as a mechanism for increasing students’ skills, abilities, attitudes and ultimately their demonstrated achievement. A human capital rationale, which is often implicitly adopted by education policymakers, suggests that in addition to individual returns through competitive jobs based both locally and internationally, increased teacher quality results in a skilled workforce that brings both economic enhancement to countries like India as well as global recognition (Johnes et al., 2017). It is difficult to conclusively know which framework has more explanatory power in the case of Indian education policy and whether traditional or nontraditional teacher quality relates to student performance in the Indian context if there is no meaningful measure of teacher quality in India. Yet, this study still asks how traditional and non-traditional measures of teacher quality differently predict student performance in India. Since there is little empirical research addressing this broad question in India, this study asks three further questions related to teacher quality in India. Based on a synthesis of the literature on traditional measures of teacher quality, the first research question (RQ1) suggests that student performance is significantly dependent on either the qualifications or certification status of teachers. According to the literature, completing an ISCED 5 (i.e., university or college) degree and being certified by a government or governmentapproved training organization provides teachers with updated key strategies to teach their subjects, which significantly influences student achievement (Wenglinsky, 2002). For example, like the education systems in the west, and in particular the United States, where teacher subject-matter competency is required to teach a particular subject, subject-matter competency in mathematics is a key priority in the NCF 2005 in India (NCERT, 2005). As a result, RQ1 asks: Which traditional teacher quality variables are significantly related to student performance in India? Moving to the second research question (RQ2), evidence suggests that the regular presence or attendance of a teacher is among the most significant nontraditional measures of teacher quality. Research shows that teacher absenteeism communicates to students that school attendance is not important, and therefore has a negative impact on student outcomes (Uehara, 1999). Likewise, teacher attitude is consistently identified as a key non-traditional measure of teacher quality because a teacher’s attitude effects the school climate and, as a result, student learning (Rowan et al., 1997; Wenglinsky, 2002). Therefore, RQ2 asks: Which non-traditional teacher quality variables are significantly related to student performance in India? Using evidence from investigations of RQ1 and RQ2, it should be clear whether the performance of students is significantly related to non-traditional teacher quality variables more than traditional teacher quality in India. Despite its strong economic influence, India is still classified as a “developing” country

202 Moving Beyond Policies for Teacher Quality and human capital theory suggest that investment in teacher quality acts as a future investment for the country and also for individuals (Mincer, 1981). This linear rationale suggests that basic structural and infrastructure characteristics, such as teacher qualification and certification should lead directly to changes in student achievement. Evidence also suggests, however, that if India provides incentives to teachers to reduce teacher absenteeism and improve teacher attitudes, student outcomes will also increase (Porres, 2016). Therefore, RQ3 asks the original research question: How are traditional and non-traditional measures of teacher quality differently related to student mathematics performance in India? The study uses correlation analysis, multiple regression, and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to answer these questions using PISA 2009 data. PISA 2009 provides school-level, teacher-related data for Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh. The data from the PISA 2009 school and student questionnaires for the two states was filtered and merged to produce a dataset representative of these two Indian states. While this data is not representative of India as a whole, it is the most complete representative dataset available on Indian education for this kind of analysis. There were originally 65 participating countries or economies in PISA 2009. Thirty-four were member countries, and ten additional economies or countries could not participate within the PISA 2009 timeframe, participating instead in the PISA 2009 Plus project administered in 2010. Two Indian states, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, participated in the 2009 Plus testing (Walker, 2011). The data and results of PISA 2009 Plus were merged with the 2009 data and results (Walker, 2011). The Indian states of Himachal Pradesh (QHP) and Tamil Nadu (QTN) were the only two states of India that participated in the 2009 plus testing. The country code for India is a three-character code (356) representing Himachal Pradesh (HP) and Tamil Nadu (TN). A total of 213 schools from both Indian states participated in PISA 2009, of which 66 schools were from Himachal Pradesh and 147 schools were from Tamil Nadu (Areepattamannil, 2014). PISA 2009 testing was administered to 15-year-olds from seventh grade and above, and PISA sought to be as inclusive as possible in respect to both participating students and schools. There were 1,616 students from seventh grade onwards that participated in PISA 2009 in Himachal Pradesh and 3,210 students from Tamil Nadu. Students from diverse socio-economic backgrounds and abilities participated in PISA, but schools could exclude students from participating in the tests if they were intellectually disabled, had functional disabilities, or if they had low English language experience (OECD, 2010). Furthermore, private and public schools participated in the tests, although special needs or small schools in remote regions were excluded. The OECD used the survey method to collect data for PISA 2009 (OECD, 2010). The operational definitions of variables included in these analyses is summarized below and in Table 9.1.

Student Achievement in India

203

Table 9.1 Descriptive Statistics for Key Teacher Quality Variables (Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, PISA 2009) Variables

N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Student Level Achievement Outcomes Student Math Score (PV1MATH)

3692

79.62

594.18

339.87

65.73

Student Science Score (PV1SCIE)

3692

90.68

626.86

334.77

63.54

Student Reading Score (PV1READ)

3692

54.00

592.89

323.01

72.76

Student Level Background Characteristics Female Student (FEMALE)

3692

0.00

1.00

0.50

0.50

Student Speaks Language of Test at Home (LANGUAGE)

3692

0.00

1.00

0.67

0.47

Student SES (ESCS)

3692

−5.55

1.79

−1.71

1.10

173

0.00

100.00

52.21

23.13

School Level Teacher Quality Predictors % Qualified Teachers (PERCQUAL) % Certified Teachers (PERCCERT)

173

0.00

100.00

87.83

23.87

Teacher Absenteeism Hinders Student Learning (ABSENTEEISM)

173

0.00

2.00

0.37

0.55

Teacher Behavior Effect on School Climate (TEACBEHA)

173

−1.62

2.12

0.60

1.03

Dependent Variables Student achievement scores (PV1MATH, Mean=339.87, SD=65.73; PV1SCIE, Mean=334.77, SD=63.54; PV1READ, Mean=323.01, SD=72.76). The student achievement scores in mathematics, science, and reading are available for all of the Indian students that participated in PISA 2009. Although 4,826 Indian students participated, those with one or more missing data items were removed for a final sample size of 3,692. First plausible values were used in these analyses rather than a composite of all five plausible values. Although there are problems with the use of plausible values from large-scale assessments like PISA (Monseur & Adams, 2009), evidence suggests that use of only one plausible value in statistical analyses may lead to an underestimation of standard errors (Laukaityte & Wiberg, 2017); however, additional analyses using all plausible values and a composite found similar results throughout. Independent Variables (Student Level) Female Student (FEMALE, Mean=0.50, SD=0.50) is an indicator of whether a student is female (1) or not (0). Student gender has been shown in previous research to be a strong predictor of student achievement in India and elsewhere (White et al., 2016). Including this variable holds gender constant when

204 Moving Beyond Policies for Teacher Quality considering the effects of teacher quality on student achievement in India. It also provides a measure of the effect a student’s gender has on their achievement scores when other independent variables are held constant. Student Speaks Language of Test at Home (LANGUAGE, Mean=0.67, SD=0.47) is a measure of whether an Indian student speaks the language the PISA assessment is delivered in at home. The test language for students in India was either Tamil, Hindi, or English (Walker, 2011), and the languages students said they speak at home were the same choices (Tamil, Hindi, or English), but still 33% of India students indicated they did not speak the language of the test at home. Student SES (ESCS, Mean=-1.71, SD=1.10) is an index on economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS), which is an indicator for students’ socioeconomic status (SES). The ESCS index was created by the PISA technical team from indicators based on student background questionnaire responses related to reported parental occupation, parental education level, and home possessions (OECD, 2012, pp. 312–315). Independent Variables (School Level) Traditional teacher quality variables include teacher qualification and teacher certification. Percent Qualified Teachers (PERCQUAL, Mean=52.21, SD=23.13) is the percentage of qualified teachers at each school in the Indian PISA 2009 Plus data. A qualified teacher is one with an ISCED 5A (college or university) qualification. Percent Certified Teachers (PERCCERT, Mean=87.83, SD=23.87) is the percent of fully certified teachers out the total number of both full- and part-time teachers in a school. Certification is handled by the Centre for Teacher Accreditation (CENTA), but CENTA allows private and non-governmental providers to deliver training and certification to teachers in India (Kumar, 2019). Non-traditional teacher quality variables include teacher absenteeism as well as an index of the degree to which teacher behavior effects school climate. Teacher Absenteeism Hinders Student Learning (ABSENTEEISM, Mean=0.37, SD=0.55) indicates the degree to which teacher absenteeism hinders student learning. The responses range from 0 (Not at All) to 3 (A Lot). Teacher Behavior Effect on School Climate (TEACBEHA, Mean=0.60, SD=1.03) is an index created by the PISA technical team, which is coded for positive teacher behavior and includes parameters from other PISA items related to teachers’ expectations of students, student–teacher relations, teachers meeting individual student needs, teacher absenteeism, staff resisting change, teachers being too strict with students, and students not being encouraged to achieve their full potential (OECD, 2012, p.16). Although teacher absenteeism is one of the parameters used to create Teacher Behavior Effect on School Climate and there is a correlation at the school-level between this variable and Teacher Absenteeism (r = −0.515, p