Let us put an end on further exploitation of Adhoc Teachers

It is difficult to remain unmoved and disconnected at the apathy that our adhoc teachers have been facing for the last decade or so. They were ‘used’ to bring about Semesterization in the university; they were later ‘misused’ to steamroll FYUP over here and were ‘abused’ and ‘forced’ to come out in support of FYUP when it was being rolled back; and finally they were completely ‘ignored’ at the time of introducing CBCS. But this is only one side of the story. The darker side of this story is that they were being abused and exploited not only by the immediate college and university authorities but even by those leaders who were supposed to protect them from their misery and agony. Only after the Centre saw the popular Modi government coming into power, some appointments could take place, although the numbers are far from reporting to any satisfactory level. Now it is widely acceptable that there were enough reasons for the then government and their allies to keep these teachers as adhoc teachers just to fulfill their conspiratorially desires and designs.

The recent UGC notification, in a single stroke, quite shockingly has swept the entire floor under their feet. For these ‘technically’ adhoc but arguably more hardworking and sincere teachers, the draconian UGC notification came as more than any shock; it was more than disturbing; much more heartless, unbelievingly mindless and absolutely ruthless. It was shocking too as the government that can easily take credit for getting the permanent appointments started after almost a decade and was instrumental in issuing directives after directives to the universities to fill up all their vacancies sooner than possible time was seen as pushing them off the hook into a deep valley. Till now the adhoc teachers were always somehow lured/forced into avoiding siding with DUTA’s call, but that was not to be true this time. The erroneous workload calculations as given in the draconian UGC gazette notification have left them with no choice but to join DUTA’s call. Unlike earlier DUTA’s calls, adhoc teachers joined us this time and as a consequence we could boycott the evaluation work completely. With the 4500 strong adhoc teachers joining us having no choice, the participation of teachers in the GBM was seen as unprecedented.  Riding on the wave of the panicked adhoc teachers the spontaneous show on the street also recorded a huge turnout of teachers when DUTA gave a call this time. The primary reason for this resounding success of DUTA’s call was the scale at which our adhoc teachers participated in these events as it was clear that with this notification, they were left with nothing more to lose.

But I can sense some insensitive leaders trying again to cook their food on the activism of these young teachers. I am afraid as they might like to keep their cooking pans on the burning emotions of these adhoc teachers to find strength in order to fight their narrow political battles. A section of teachers has already started mixing this problem with other issues that happened in Hyderabad, IIFA, JNU or in Ram Lal Anand college. Some others have started finding fire in the cold smoke that was left after the present government decisively burnt their dynastical aspirations in the last elections. These leaders are probably suffering from selected amnesia as they have failed to admit that the root cause of all these problems have been inherited by the present NDA government and are not their own creation. Conspiring to build up a movement against the central government by keeping the ‘fear’ alive among our young friends would be a complete dishonesty on our part. Let us not push our adhoc teachers again into another blind well after they came out of the one in which they were compelled to stay for a good 7-8 years.

Let us put the issue of Permanent Appointments on the highest priority.  We must not compromise on the issue of workload estimates and procedures. We, who are riding on the wave of an unprecedented spurge in the DUTA activism, must utilize this mandate to completely do away with this politics of exploitation against these teachers. Since the MHRD has been more than clear in her message that the existing workload will not be disturbed at all costs, let us engage her in a meaningful dialogue to stop this politics of exploitation in Delhi University. Instead of deriving strength from the fear of these teachers to build up a movement against the government let us put an end to their exploitation as they have no one but to look at DUTA for this. Yes, API-PBAS is promoting negativity, spurious research and fake publications and we must fight to get a scientific, acceptable and fresh way of promoting hardwork, sincerity and excellence among teachers – but not at the cost of prolonging the apathy of adhoc teachers.

Idea of Self-Regulation

The idea of regulation in the Education has been generating enough discussion for a very long period in India. CBSE, UGC, AICTE, NAAC and similar authorities have been created with similar intentions by the government of India. While these institutions have failed to deliver on several fronts one aspect that has caught the largest share of attention in this regard is their concern to regulate the quality and performance of teachers in educational institutions.

Let me not hesitate in accepting a fact that teaching has gradually been evolved as a profession from an era when it was considered primarily as a mission. It is also true that teachers now demand favorable environment to perform from an era when they looked only for an opportunity. And, it will also not be a wrong assertion that teachers earlier used to command greater respect in the society than they do in the recent age. Unfortunately, on the issue of regulation, much of the deliberation takes place on how to regulate performance of teachers while the desired stress to be given on the regulation of management of the educational institution gets entirely overlooked. But here, I am addressing the issue of regulation for the teachers.

There is no denying to the fact that in the modern age when teaching is considered more as a profession one cannot escape from getting it governed through some way of regulation. Teachers must be allowed to ask and demand but they must also be answerable at the same time. Unfortunately, attempts to put some kind of regulation for teaching have invariably been proven to be counterproductive in the final analysis. The mechanism of API scores has been the latest blunder. To force teachers to submit daily reports is another idea that is equally bizarre. The idea of installing bio-metric attendance system and similar attempts of peeping into the classrooms has similar dangers.

In fact, such practices encourage teachers to pay greater attention on responding to these mechanisms of evaluation rather than making greater efforts to improve their basic performance skills. More than offering an environment where poorly performing teachers could find reason to improve themselves these measures serve as spirit dampeners for better performing teachers and even hurt the sentiments of conscientious teachers – and that is hardly affordable. It is probably lesser true for others but, in case of teachers, one must encourage the idea of self-regulation to achieve desired results and improvement. Unfortunately, teachers have shown little interest to put a system of regulation on their own and therefore, out of all the possibilities, the next best option is to get the performance of teachers evaluated by the students themselves. One can think of putting a minimum number on the feedbacks if these are to be picked up for extracting any meaningful statistical inference. One can also put a threshold on the attendance of the students for making them eligible to submit a sensible feedback. But, I see no alternative to this if we teachers would like to have respite from the mindless implementation of continuous counterproductive mechanisms in this regard.

Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) - aim, intent and the method

(Published in the June 7, 2015 issue of Organiser and can be visited through the following link http://organiser.org/Encyc/2015/6/13/1331814.aspx )

Higher education in India has been traditionally designed to produce academic thinkers primarily. In fact, academicians are still being produced by the present education system as individuals having a deep understanding of their subjects. However, we have collectively failed to realise that this education system does not have a copyright of producing thinkers. A degree has no relation with the amount of thinking or the extent of analysis one is capable of indulging into. We are confused between the sense of literacy and the importance of experience. We are yet to acknowledge the difference between a bookish knowledge and the confidence gained in a working environment, between a source of information and a source of wisdom. In our society, a skilled worker is invariably rated as poorer to pure-thinkers. An executor is often rated lower to an administrator. Advice of a doctor and an engineer on any other field other than their own profession never get the importance as compared to the degree-holding academic thinkers. We want the academic thinkers to rule this society. With this absurdity, we have been used to giving undue importance to the marks that we score in examinations as we use those marks to measure our overall 'value' in the society. In this system, failures opt for skills and winners enjoy a skill-free life and often keep a skill-demeaning attitude.

In view of the above, if one is asking for allowing choices in a course; allowing flexibility in the span period and place; making provision for inter-disciplinary approach; introducing innovative methods and advance technology in teaching; asking each student to complete, write and present some hands-on project during any course; giving options for skill-learning courses; maintaining some commonality in the structure and contents of those courses that are identified by identical names; bringing some highly desirable changes in our evaluation schemes, I have absolutely no reasons to oppose CBCS (Choice Based Credit System). Strangely, what is hard to accept is when it is asserted that these features can only come integrated with a semester structure. It becomes even difficult to digest when we are made to believe that these features can only come at the cost of having floating workloads for the teachers. And the most important of all, it is most stupid to imagine that these features can be introduced in any hurried manner as it has been witnessed in the recent years.

Let me address some of these issues over here. Semester system is good - beyond doubt. But it can work only where we have a one-teacher one-examination paper structure. Even IITs would fail to deliver if all of them decide to have identical examination papers in their semester examinations. Delhi University, where a paper is taught at 30 odd colleges or more and students are expected to get identical examination paper to solve, the semester system will fail to deliver the desired result. Further, let no one fool us in believing that with the same infrastructure and human resources we will ever be able to offer more choices than what we are providing the students right now. With the present constraints of manpower and infrastructure, we can only allow exchanges - allowing a choice to one student only at the cost of a choice of another student.

If we want all the features of CBCS to get embedded into the undergraduate courses in Delhi University, the first thing that we must decide uncompromisingly is to go back to the annual mode. An honest internal evaluation of the students in an annual duration, combined with their true-assessment through external evaluators in their final examinations can be used to Grade them perfectly. I would advocate for an hindrance free three years of such a scheme without failing them or holding them back in any year. They should then be allowed to 'improve' their grades and alternately allowed to even opt for around six to eight additional papers to claim a degree in their own choice of subject if they happen to clear their original degree requirements. Let time be no constraint for those interested students who after completing their History(Honours) would like to appear for additional six to eight papers of mathematics to claim a degree to pursue a career in mathematics. A choice and mobility can this way be introduced meaningfully. Further, in the annual system, summer vacations would be purposefully utilized by the students as they can be asked to do summer projects either at their parent institute or depending on the availability any other place of their choice to give them skill-training, academic-training or research-training as per their own inclination.

Many attempts have been already wasted in Delhi University, let us prepare this university first before attempting any meaningful transition. Let us decide on the contents of the syllabus in so much advance that the university is able to conduct a year of continuous refresher courses before implementation. Ensuring adequate preparedness is what makes a distinction between a meaningful transition and a failed experimentation.

Education reforms - Kitchenette vs Cafeteria approach

(The edited version of this was also published in the Organiser that can be visited using the following link
http://organiser.org//Encyc/2015/5/2/Column---Yielding-New-Education-Approach.aspx)

The Cafeteria approach

The academic reforms in the name of CBCS is on the verge of being implemented in the higher education. The new system as proposed by the government will basically need us to review our old single-discipline oriented approach in higher education. It demands, what they call, a cafeteria approach in our education. What is meant thereby is that the new system would encourage a multi-disciplinary approach and it is claimed further that it would give the students the much desired flexibility in terms of choice of the discipline papers. In addition to this, it also boasts of leaving the issues of choosing the span period and the place to acquire education, entirely on the students. While nobody can deny the desirability of these features in our higher education but the feasibility, the state of preparedness of our institutions and other costs in terms of infrastructure and other resources to provide these choices have always remained in doubt. 

Assessment of The Present system

Our present education system follows a strict strait-jacket approach. It has little scope for any flexibility in the choice of papers. The span period to complete a course is also predefined in our institutions that gives very little scope to those who prefer to learn at their own speed. It is due to this that generally Indian students go through a forced-study approach - wherein choices are often forced by the parents, by the peers, by the teachers and many a times even forced by the ease with which marks can be scored therein. The studies here therefore are largely teacher-centric, parent-driven and forced by the societal-preferences. Some major aspects that need to be addressed immediately by any new system are given as under:

1) We need to do away with the concept of having a fixed time frame for acquiring degrees. Those who realise their passion, potential and interest a little late find the doors of learning options closed. Despite our general agreement with the common perception that an interested and motivated student learns much faster, restrictions still rule against this provision in India.

2) In the absence of even a quasi-uniform acceptable standard of a particular degree in this country, it becomes really impossible to compare identical degrees issued from different institutions of India. What adds to this problem is that students find it impossible to use a part of their studies at one place while continuing studies at another place. 

3) We are so used to relate studies only with academics that any deviation from this is considered as a blow on our education system. The higher studies in India aims at producing only academics. Skill-learning are considered sub-standard and are never preferred over academics. There is an urgent need to break this hierarchy and treat academics as only one of the areas for the students to choose from.

4) We need to look at our examination system also urgently. The invention of electronic gadgets have exposed many holes in our university examination system. Moreover our examinations work as a dampener for the spirit of learning. Understanding becomes a casualty in our examinations. Knowing well that we can only group students under a handful of categories such as (extraordinary, good, above-average, average, below average, poor and worthless) our system make them waste their useful energy, time and ideas to get exhausted in a process of rote-learning just to acquire a rank within a category. 

Past Experience

We must also learn from the failed attempt to implement FYUP ( Four Year Undergraduate Program ) in Delhi University. The tall claims could not be realised as the reforms were carried out in isolation and with inexplicable hurry. An apprehensive Delhi University now has developed an attitude that is hardly conducive to carry out a fresh round of reforms. The lesson must be learnt from this failed exercise that whenever such a change in the system is proposed, its implementation must precede with a series of refresher courses to prepare the teachers and the infrastructure according to the requirement. Although there is an urgent need to attempt reforms, instead of a piece-meal approach we must keep a holistic vision starting right from the primary education. The whole idea of forced-study in India needs to change towards encouraging a self-study attitude in higher education. Primary and secondary education curricula should also be developed so that they complement the student-centric approach in the higher education. However, Keeping in view our own state of affairs, I would suggest that instead of the celebrated cafeteria approach we must explore a kitchenette approach. 

Cafeteria and the Kitchenette approach

The cafeteria approach symbolizes a student-centric approach but at the same time it often means a pocket-centric and in the Indian context a parent-unfriendly approach. The choices in a cafeteria come at a price and playing around with the choices such as even sharing a plate is often discouraged in a cafeteria approach. It also includes paying penalty for any cancelled order and therefore in an honest analysis this cafeteria approach turns out to be primarily a market-friendly approach at all costs.

Instead, India needs a kitchenette approach wherein the government can play a role of provider and the users will have all the options available before them. Depending on their choice they would not only be able to prepare items of their choices but they would additionally be encouraged to explore into the unexplored territories. With raw materials available to them, users of a kitchenette are provided with options that are  not limited by the pocket but only by the availability of food items.

To indulge into this, the government will have to explore ways to provide learning materials free on the internet sites in the form of lecture series of interactive and non-interactive variety, demonstration of experimental procedures, generous discussion on cutting edge technologies, providing scope for developing useful industrial ideas and other job-providing skills. We must create an environment where at least those who have realized their potential or interest are not deprived of an opportunity to acquire the relevant knowledge. The most regressive attitude is that we often relate age of a student with her ability to acquire knowledge. A person who realises that he should have chosen medicine as a field of choice in his late 40s finds his/her dream inexplicably unrealizable. Now that will be an injustice in a kitchenette approach. Whenever one realizes hunger, there must be a scope of preparing food making use of the available items in the kitchenette along with things available with her. Let us think of setting the students free to accumulate credits and once someone successfully acquires the required credits let an appropriate degree be given without any other unnecessary requirements. Let the working experience also provide some credit to a student in this system. Let an electrician start with some credit already in her kitty while attempting a degree in science/technology. Let an electronics equipment-repairing professional, a worker with an experience in building brick/steel/concrete structures, a plumber or a mechanic start with some advantage if they decide to study for a relevant degree. Let a nurse or a person having experience in pathology start with some advantage on the others aspiring to become a doctor. Let skills be treated at par with academics so that the preference for academics is not unjustifiably driven by an expectation for getting respect in our society. Let only the passion and interest rule the choice in this kitchenette approach as while preparing food only taste and quality governs our choice and not the cost of the food items involved.

Even though CBCS is being claimed to have been addressing some of the concerns discussed above, a cautious approach allowing wider consultation and discussions will only help in realizing its aims better.