Teachers, isn't it time to teach?

Sunil Sondhi

In recent years, the government of India has substantially increased the financial resources for inputs that will help to provide quality education for all. Measures have also been taken to make education more inclusive by providing assured access to disadvantaged sections. The implicit (though rarely stated) expectation is that this financing and access would provide students with time and opportunities to interact with teachers and engage in learning activities.

Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the proportion of the mandated teaching time that is actually used to engage students in learning and its relationship to student performance and government spending. The number of teaching days mandated by the government is rarely implemented in most of the government schools and colleges. Without looking into this important issue, educational policy reforms may not yield the desired results. Government schools and colleges systematically seem to function in deviation from the official timetables. Strikes, festivals, elections, and delayed opening of academic sessions account for routine disruptions in most schools and colleges, which are estimated to impart education for only 120 days of the mandated 180. It is common to see classes in colleges getting disrupted for several days during elections to student unions or staff associations. Strikes too seem to have become a norm and matter of right.

Teacher absenteeism has been studied in considerable detail, and it has been recognised for long that the loss rates are 25 per cent. Even when they are not absent, teachers may come late. They may also avoid teaching. A Public Report on Basic Education in India found that in only 53 per cent of the schools visited by the research staff all teachers were actually teaching in their classrooms; in 21 per cent of the surveyed schools, teachers were mainly “minding the class.” In the remaining 26 per cent, they were talking with other teachers, sitting/standing outside the room, were in the staff room, or were observed in other non-teaching activities. The situation in government colleges may not be very different.

The loss of learning time due to disruptions and absenteeism has an adverse impact on the quality of education. Though correlation studies do not prove causality, published studies do suggest that teacher absenteeism is related to lower student performance. A NASSCOM study recently reported that only 25 per cent of the graduates from the Indian universities were considered employable by industry. What these graduates lacked most were soft skills such as communication, teamwork, and problem-solving approach. If learning is imparted in colleges for only 120 out of the 180 teaching days, there will hardly be any time for teaching anything beyond the bare syllabus. Even that may not be always completed. In such a situation, what goes on in the name of higher education in most colleges is more a farce than reality.

To make up for the learning time lost to strikes, absenteeism, and lack of timely feedback, some students resort to private tuition. Tutored students are able to perform better in schools and colleges, whereas students of low-income families become disadvantaged. Students from low-income families need more time for learning to read, write and engage in discussions. Classroom interruptions and disruptions have a greater impact on these students in terms of loss of learning time. It has been estimated that such students would need to attend classes for several months in order to attain an equivalent amount of engaged learning time. Wastage adds up over time and creates the risk of failure for poorer students. Educators call this problem the “pedagogy of poverty.”

Loss of learning time has significant economic implications for the country. Government revenues pay for teachers' salaries, buildings, teacher training, and materials, and it is expected that 100 per cent of this investment will be used for student learning. For instance, the total Plan and non-Plan grant to the University of Delhi under the XI Plan is estimated at Rs. 2,500 crore. This is meant for an academic year of 180 teaching days. If it actually turns out to be of only 120 days, more than Rs. 800 crore of taxpayers' money will go down the drain. Probably, no institution uses 100 per cent of its time productively, but losses of the magnitude shown in various studies suggest that education costs more than it ought to, or achieves less for what it costs.

There could be several ways of increasing the instructional inputs and outputs if policy or managerial interventions were designed to increase learning time. Such interventions may be institutionally harder, though they would be cheaper on government outlays. Policy dialogue is needed to address the sources of “leakage” at the levels of administration, teacher and classroom, and plan action to eliminate it. The future of the educational reforms will depend on how seriously the government takes the wastage of learning time. The proposed regulatory authority for education must ensure that the time and money the government provides for learning by the students are actually spent for obtaining learning outcomes.

(The writer is Principal, Maharaja Agrasen College, University of Delhi. Emai l: sondhisunil@yahoo.com)

If learning is imparted in colleges for only 120 out of the 180 mandated days, there will hardly be any time for teaching anything beyond the bare syllabus.

Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article488001.ece