The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) was established in 1993 by an Act of Parliament. It is the all-powerful regulatory body for the teacher education system in the country, consisting of the Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) that run bachelor of education (BEd) and diploma in education (DEd) programmes to prepare teachers, and masters in education (MEd) programmes to prepare teacher educators.
To fulfil the national commitment to education for all, India began a massive expansion of its schooling system in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This demanded a proportionate increase in the number of teachers. The NCTE was set up in this period, “with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system”.
From the mid-1960s to 1993, the number of TEIs in India went up from about 1,200 to about 1,500. After the NCTE was set up, the number of TEIs exploded, to about 16,000 (over 90% private) by 2011. This did increase the supply of teachers. In every other aspect, the NCTE was a colossal failure.
From 1993 to 2011, the NCTE presided over the development of what is perhaps the weakest teacher education system in any large country in the world. The institutional architecture, the curricular approach, and the key operational aspects such as faculty quality, are not only bereft of imagination and sound educational basis, but are designed to serve the consolidation of power of the NCTE. This power was then actively used to drive a system of graft where college licences were sold, with not even a modicum of consideration for even the most basic matters, such as whether the college being approved actually has faculty or not, or whether classes are conducted or not.
This weak and corrupt TE system is at the core of India’s problems in school education. Till we fix this, all efforts at improving the quality of our schooling is like tinkering with the skin, while an aggressive cancer corrodes the body everywhere inside.
There is no empirical study available on the extent of such corruption. Those who sell (or buy) degrees without even conducting classes don’t cooperate with researchers. Many of us in education estimate that 75% of the TEIs are completely dysfunctional and corrupt.
The other 25% are not corrupt, but the quality of the majority of them is very indifferent. We have many good teachers despite this mess. Certainly, there are a few outstanding TEIs in the country, but these exceptions are similar to those exceptional and brave individuals within and associated with the NCTE system who have fought for probity and educational quality, even as this reprehensible drama has unfolded since 1993.
The qualification rate of 2-8%, through the Teacher Eligibility Tests started a few years ago in an effort to insulate the schools from the devastating effects of this system, correspond to these estimates. Only those who qualify can become teachers in public schools. But this is like a small water purification plant when the whole river is poisoned, with millions living along the river.
In 2011, the Supreme Court (SC) established a high-powered commission with the late Justice J.S. Verma as the chairperson to review the TE system. This suo motu action of the SC was sparked by a case that it was hearing.
In 2008, the NCTE approved the establishment of 291 DEd colleges in Maharashtra, even as the state had explicitly stated that it did not want any more TEIs. This matter went to court.
The SC realized that this was the tip of an iceberg of corruption and dysfunction. The commission’s recommendations were accepted by the Union ministry of human resource development (MHRD), which is the ministry governing NCTE. The commission suggested a complete overhaul of the TE system, including its regulatory, institutional and educational aspects.
The implementation of the recommendations was another matter. Other than on the most innocuous of recommendations, nothing really happened. The majority of dysfunctional TEIs are owned by people with significant political and financial capital, the TE mafia. Taking on this mafia required doggedly energetic execution and political will, which wasn’t there.
We are on the cusp of what may be a critical period in India’s teacher education history. The MHRD and NCTE are now doing something that most of us had only hoped for. They have begun a complete and methodical overhaul of the TE system, from its regulatory to its educational aspects. This requires capability and alignment of the people within MHRD and NCTE, and it requires steely resolve and political will. The start seems to exhibit this in adequate measure.
The campaign has just begun, it can get thwarted by many forces. They are already facing resistance and attack from multiple quarters. Unsurprisingly from the TE mafia, but surprisingly from a few in the education establishment who are perhaps envious of the initiative that they were unable to take, and also many others.
What has been started is not a battle of a few months but a war against a deeply corrupt system. This will take years to conclude. The MHRD and NCTE need public support. All citizens of this country bothered about the future of education, should align behind this effort, and stay steadfast till we have a new teacher education system.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.