Connect with us

Analysis

India’s Absent Teachers: Not As Big A Problem As We Think

Often when teachers were not present physically in the classroom, it was for official reasons, such as trainings, data collection, and authorised leave, the study found.

Published

on

government school

Hiralal, a 36-year old headteacher in a small government school in Basarpur, a village in the western Indian state of Rajasthan, was absent 45 out of 200 working days (22.5%), the school time prescribed by the Right to Education (RTE) Act. (The name of the teacher and the school have been changed to maintain confidentiality.) In a country where only 59% of grade III children can read and understand a passage, according to the government’s National Achievement Survey, good quality teaching could be key to changing the school environment and encouraging learning.

Contrary to common perception, Hiralal was not absent because he had decided to skip school without legitimate reasons; he was absent 21 days because of official reasons such as examination duty, trainings and election-related duty, and 15 days for personal reasons, including 10 medical leaves, which he was entitled to as part of his contract. On average, teachers at Basarpur School were on official duty for 16 of 200 days (8.4%).

While overall teacher absence was 18.9%, teacher absenteeism without reason or because of truancy was only 2.5%, according to a recent study conducted by the Azim Premji Foundation, a non-profit that works in education across six states–Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh. Hiralal’s case study was a part of this research, which covered 619 government schools with 2,861 teachers.

Desktop (1)

Source: Azim Premji University
Note: As ‘overall absence’ and ‘reasons for absence’ are calculated based on the bases/counts of properly recorded responses for the relevant variables, there are small differences in the respective totals.

The study might not be generalisable to all government schools in India, as the schools were not selected randomly, and were from districts and blocks the Azim Premji Foundation works in. These include some of the most disadvantaged in the country.

Data and information about teacher absence from schools are often conflated with teacher absenteeism. Teachers might be ‘absent’ from classrooms because of several legitimate, and sometimes even useful, reasons, known as ‘teacher absence’. On the other hand, ‘teacher absenteeism’ refers to teachers being absent from school without a legitimate reason, that is, truancy. Confusing teacher absence with teacher absenteeism could lead to ineffective policy, and unfair and demotivating vilification of teachers.

Teacher absence mostly for ‘official’ reasons

Often when teachers were not present physically in the classroom, it was for official reasons, such as trainings, data collection, and authorised leave, the study found.

Official reasons for absence include ‘official academic duties’, such as trainings and cluster meetings; ‘official school administrative duties’ such as data collection, submission of reports or data related to the mid-day meal program, children with special needs, and work related to various student-incentive programs such as distribution of textbooks, and ‘official other departmental work’ which included work related to elections, census surveys etc.

Several studies have found a large difference between teacher absence and teacher absenteeism.

For instance, teacher absence was found to be 23.64%, in a 2016 World Bank Group study, while teacher absenteeism without reason was 4.7%.

Despite this, popular discourse on teacher accountability, and senior government officers, often refer to remarkably high figures of teacher absenteeism–around 25%, but sometimes even as high as 50%–without citing any research evidence.

Teachers face tough conditions in schools

On a regular school day, Hiralal, a thin man with a calm temperament, rides his motorcycle to Basarpur School, one of more than a million elementary schools in the country. Hiralal mostly reaches the school 15 minutes before the school—with 82 students in grades I to V, three full-time teachers, and one temporary teacher—starts.

Its students are mostly Kanjars, a historically nomadic community which primarily produces liquor and runs brothels, according to community members. The community finds it difficult to make their children’s education a priority, they said.

It was largely due to the efforts of Hiralal–who chiefly teaches mathematics and environmental science–that the school was set up in 2001, and has been running since then, with rising enrolment. Until a school building was sanctioned in 2007, Hiralal paid the monthly rent of Rs 200 for a school building out of his pocket.

Teachers at the school face many challenges: The school mainly targets marginalised communities who cannot provide adequate home support for their children, it doesn’t have adequate infrastructure, fewer teachers than even the number of grades in the school, and little monitoring or support by district and block-level education officers. It takes two of the teachers between one and two hours to reach school (higher commute times have been linked with greater teacher absenteeism), and still they mostly attended school regularly and punctually, and took about 11 authorised personal leaves, on average.

Should we consider the possibility that the nature of teaching itself encourages teachers to be committed and motivated, and hold themselves accountable without external monitoring, provided there is an enabling work environment that facilitates collegiality and trust?

To reduce teacher absence from classrooms, important to know why teachers are absent

Teacher absenteeism is often seen as the single most critical issue that is plaguing the government school system. For example, the government suggested biometric systems as a means to curb teacher absenteeism in its 2016-17 economic survey.

The new evidence from this study, and some previous evidence, begs the question: Should we instead focus our energies on systemic reform in the education system through ensuring adequate number of trained teachers, making relevant and good quality continuous professional development opportunities available for them, and by doing away with non-academic duties of teachers?

A culture of targeting and blaming teachers–who often work in challenging situations–for matters that are beyond their control might be counterproductive and adversely affect the government school system.

(In arrangement with IndiaSpend.org, a data-driven, non-profit, public interest journalism platform, with whom Mukta Patil is an analyst. The views expressed are those of IndiaSpend. Feedback at [email protected])

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Analysis

BJP needs to rein in the Hindutva hotheads

Published

on

Narendra Modi

The rise in the growth rate to the moderately satisfactory 6.3 per cent from the depressingly low 5.7 per cent is good news for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at a time when the Prime Minister reminded the audience at a function organised by a media house about former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam’s observation about the negativism which generally marked newspapers and magazines.

Narendra Modi’s case for a more positive outlook in the media and the country will seem more credible in the context of the latest growth figures if only because they highlight the mistake of those like former Finance Minister Yashwant Singh of the BJP, who have been lamenting (perhaps with a touch of schadenfreude) about the economy’s free fall.

As Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has said, the country’s emergence from the recent slump means that it has got over the twin blows of demonetisation and the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which were expected by Modi’s critics to spell his doom.

The turn for the better in the economy has come at the right time for the BJP when its frenetic campaigning in Gujarat with Modi addressing 30 meetings in a fortnight and with as many as 40 cabinet ministers camping in the state, pointed to a measure of uneasiness in the party about its prospects in what is widely regarded as its bailiwick.

However, considering that the BJP’s success in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh is almost a foregone conclusion, one can say that the rise in the growth rate will not make much of a difference to the outcome. All that it can do is to dampen some of the ardour of the ruling party’s opponents.

Even then, the point remains that the BJP will face its real challenge not in Gujarat or Himachal Pradesh this month, but in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh next year. It is in those elections, where the BJP will encounter the anti-incumbency factor, that it will become clear whether the rise in the growth rate has helped the party or is of little consequence.

The reason for the doubts is that it is not clear to what extent the unemployment problem will be mitigated by the climbing growth rate in these days of automation and artificial intelligence.

Equally uncertain is the quantum of the impact on the BJP’s hopes as a result of the prevailing tension and uncertainty caused by the crime rate — and especially the safety of women and even children.

The effect of the rampaging Hindutva hardliners declaring bounties on the heads of actors and directors is another unknown factor whose effect will be known only after the votes are counted.

Up till now the BJP has been sitting pretty because its “vikas” (development) plank still has many takers even if it hasn’t made a perceptible dent on the unemployment scene. In addition, Modi’s personal popularity remains high because of his oratorical skills and the impression he conveys about the seriousness of his intent to take the country forward.

In contrast, his opponents lack an agenda which can have an inspiring effect and are bereft of leaders capable of drawing enthusiastic crowds although Rahul Gandhi is showing signs of the old Nehruvian appeal.

The opposition depends therefore on, first, the economy continuing to be sluggish and, secondly, on the Hindutva hotheads creating a ruckus. But such an approach is obviously a negative one, as is also banking on the anti-incumbency factor to undermine the BJP-run state governments. There is little hope, therefore, for the opposition if it cannot adopt a positive attitude with a clear projection of the kind of India which it envisages.

For the BJP, on the other hand, it is a tug-of-war between vikas and the hotheads. As long as the economy shows signs of buoyancy, it can expect to be home and dry. It is of the utmost importance for it, therefore, to ensure that the recovery doesn’t flag and that the country regains its status as the fastest-growing economy in the world.

At the same time, the party cannot allow the loonies in its ranks, who include ministers, to run amok. It does not reflect well on a government when the apex court has to direct the states to check cow vigilantes or tell senior politicians in the ruling dispensation to keep their mouths shut on yet-to-be released films lest they influence the censor board.

As it is, the impression persists that the government is not too comfortable with the autonomy of established institutions as could be seen from the official directive to the University Grants Commission (UGC) to ensure that students and teachers did not miss Modi’s “life changing” speech on the occasion of Deen Dayal Upadhyay’s centenary celebrations and Swami Vivekananda’s 125th birth anniversary last September.

If the government does not want the UGC, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and other autonomous bodies to become “caged parrots”, as the Supreme Court once called the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), then it has to desist from enforcing regimentation and stopping the saffron extremists from targeting artistes and all those who are not with the BJP. Otherwise, growth rate alone will not prevent the erosion of its popularity.

By : Amulya Ganguli

(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at [email protected] )

Continue Reading

Analysis

India in the global matrix: We must deepen bilateral relations with Japan and the US

Published

on

Kapil Sibal
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson calls on Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi (File Photo: IANS/PIB)

With the dismantling of trade barriers and the exponential increase of cross-border economic activity, the nature of the global economy has changed. This reality has necessitated nations to reorient the thrust of their foreign policy objectives.

The rise of an assertive China, the new Czar on the horizon, has to be reckoned with globally. In this context, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to India on October 24, 2017, assumes significance. A week before this visit, Tillerson had described the Indo–US strategic relationship as “bookends of stability on either side of the globe”. Shared values, commitment to the rule of law, freedom of navigation and free trade are the four pillars of this evolving bilateral narrative.

China’s emerging status is also reflected in the first meeting of a quadrilateral dialogue on the sidelines of ASEAN summit in Manila on November 12, embracing India, Australia, US and Japan to protect global commerce by espousing a rule-based approach to the commons and freedom to navigate in the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean across to Africa. This was an idea that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had earlier floated in 2007. Both US and Japan believe that the time has come to respond not just to Beijing’s assertive behaviour, but also to counteract its OBOR — One Belt One Road initiative.

It would, however, be naïve of India to think that the US will be willing to directly involve itself in the Asia Pacific region. The US, under Trump, would rather prefer New Delhi to counterbalance Beijing rather than involve itself directly in the region. The $309 billion US trade deficit with China in 2016 in the context of $648 US goods & services trade makes for economic interdependence, which might override other considerations. Besides, the US requires Chinese influence in containing North Korea along with other issues of global concern and significance wherein both the US and China need to collaborate. In the circumstances, it will be difficult for the US to involve itself in the Asia Pacific region in any substantial way. Yet, the increasing proximity between Pakistan and China in building the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) requires US to further build on its strategic partnership with India, expecting India to become a significant player in Afghanistan and a key partner in its outreach to the Asia Pacific region. At the same time, US troops in Afghanistan rely on Pakistan for logistical support, transit and Islamabad’s influence with the Taliban and its affiliated Haqqani network. On the other hand, during talks with President Xi Jinping on the fringes of the G20 Summit in Hamburg in July, 2017, Shinzo Abe expressed Japan’s intention to participate in China’s OBOR initiative. Japanese $270 billion bilateral trade volume with China is not insignificant apart from investments of 20,000 Japanese firms in China.

In the currents and crosscurrents of political imperatives and economic realities, India has to tread very carefully. The recent standoff at Doklam, our decision not to participate in China’s Belt and Road initiative, the lack of any perceptive movement in resolving our boundary dispute with China and its increasing proximity with Pakistan, apart from the fact that China, through investments, is making inroads in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and has the economic clout to benefit Nepal, are matters of great concern. At the same time, Chinese investments in India are on the rise. The Chinese are targeting key sectors of the economy including power, telecom, engineering, and infrastructure. Washington’s new South Asia policy has not gone unnoticed by the Chinese, who believe the US intends to turn New Delhi into a stronghold to counterbalance Beijing. The Chinese are not willing to swallow anything that undermines their interests.

New Delhi must, therefore, be careful in openly aligning itself in any quadrilateral partnership. It needs to continuously engage with China to resolve bilateral issues. Any attempt to openly align itself with any anti-China alliance will only exacerbate our relations which we can ill-afford, considering our skewed bilateral trade balance. Additionally, our economy is yet to achieve the robust rate of economic growth, which alone will give us the self-confidence to deal with issues that are likely to confront us in the future.

We need to deepen our bilateral relations with Japan as well as the US, and leverage that relationship consistent with our national interest. Our confluence of interest with the US can help ensure constructive initiatives in the Asia Pacific region and help us in deepening our relationship with Afghanistan. We must recognise that despite the warm ties between India and the US, no significant benefits have ensued in terms of our becoming a permanent member of the Security Council or the US pressurising Pakistan to ensure that its territory is not used as a springboard for terrorist activities in India. The growing proximity of Russia and China, as well as Russia’s developing economic involvement in the area of energy and defence in Pakistan, is evidence that in foreign policy, it’s the confluence of interests in a given time frame that matter.

India, today, does not have the luxury to be part of any alliance but needs to leverage its relationships both with the democratic world and in and around our neighbourhood to protect our self-interest.

The author is a member of the Rajya Sabha, and a senior Indian National Congress leader. Views expressed are personal.

Courtesy: This Article is published in the DNA on 20th November 2017.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Demonetisation failed litmus test as most banned notes returned

Published

on

demonetisation death

(‘Note-Bandi: Demonetisation and India’s Elusive Chase for Black Money’ is an upcoming book from Oxford University Press dedicated to the “memory of Indian citizens who lost their lives due to demonetisation”). Excerpts from a chapter.

The litmus test for the success of any demonetisation is the amount of cash that does not return to the banking system. For long, economists and observers were intrigued by the refusal of the RBI to share data on SBNs (Specified Bank Notes) returned to banks after December 10, 2016.

Information on SBNs returned was important because any amount not returned to the banking system was supposed to be ‘black money’, which could be ‘extinguished’ by the RBI… Consequently, the RBI could pass over an equivalent amount to the government, which in turn could spend it for welfare purposes.

The government’s expectations were shared by the Attorney-General of India, Mukul Rohatgi, with the Supreme Court. According to Rohatgi, the government did not expect more than Rs 12 lakh crore to be returned to the banks, which implied that about Rs 3 lakh crore worth of ‘black money’ was to be extinguished and passed over to the government.

Image result for demonetisation disaster urjit patel

As demonetisation proceeded, these hopes stood belied. To begin with, (RBI Governor Urjit) Patel was forced to clarify on December 7, 2016, that “the withdrawal of legal tender characteristic status does not extinguish any of the RBI balance sheets … They are still the liability of the RBI”.

On December 8, Revenue Secretary Hasmukh Adhia told journalists that “the expectation is that the entire money which is in circulation has to come to the banking channel”. In other words, the pace at which SBNs were being returned to the banking system had convinced the government that there would be no currency left to extinguish. By December 10, Rs 12.44 lakh crore worth SBNs had already returned to the banking system.

Related image

The government staunchly refused to share any figure on SBNs returned after December 10. Instead, it attempted to obfuscate facts and confuse the public with convoluted stories of ‘double counting’. On December 15, (Economic Affairs Secretary Shaktikanta) Das told the media that data on SBNs returned were being withheld because the RBI suspected ‘double counting’ of currency notes.

Das’ statement was soon shown to be wrong.

There were two ways in which returned SBNs could be counted. One, through the simple addition of the cash position of individual banks with respect to the SBNs returned. There could be double-counting here, as banks without currency chests may have deposited cash with banks that had currency chests.

Two, directly from the currency chests, in which case there was no scope for double-counting. (Deputy Governor of RBI Usha) Thorat, in an interview, pointed out that “there is no question of double counting… RBI only looks at the currency chest data”.

In an interview with the Economic Times, Rajnish Kumar, the Managing Director of the SBI, further clarified this in no uncertain terms: …currency chest position is the correct position, there cannot be any flaw in that … double counting can only happen if the individual banks and post offices are reporting the deposit position … but [in] currency chest reporting which is done every day and which is an automated process, the possibility of any discrepancy does not exist … If the Reserve Bank has given the number based on the currency chest position, then there should be no discrepancy. But if the data is given on the basis of daily reports of deposits being given by the bank, then there is a possibility of some double counting.

In its regular media briefings, the RBI was indeed providing SBN data from currency chests and not by adding the cash positions of individual banks. The RBI’s Deputy Governor R. Gandhi told the media on December 13, 2016, that “specified bank notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 returned to the RBI and currency chests amounted to Rs 12.44 lakh crore as on December 10, 2016 “.

Yet, the RBI was to state on January 5, 2017, that “figures [on SBN] would need to be reconciled with the physical cash balances to eliminate accounting errors/possible double counts”. The effort, clearly, was to hide.

It was only in August 2017 that the RBI, ultimately, released the final figures of the SBNs returned. According to the RBI’s Annual Report for 2016-17, out of the Rs 15.44 lakh crore worth of currency in circulation as on November 8, 2016, Rs 15.3 lakh crore had returned to the banking system as on June 30, 2017. In other words, 98.96 per cent of the SBNs was back in the banking system and only 1.04 per cent of the SBNs remained outside.

The verdict was finally out: As most critics predicted, demonetisation had failed to extinguish any amount of money that could be alleged as ‘black’.

By R. Ramakumar

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author’s own.

(R. Ramakumar is Dean, Centre for Study of Developing Economies, School of Development Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He can be reached at [email protected])

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Most Popular