Descripción del Algoritmo de Dominios de Aplicabilidad

The idea of Cluster Resource Centres (CRCs) or Sankul Sansadhan Kendras emerged in 1995 as part of Bihar Education Project’s (BEP) First Phase (1991- 97). Covering 12-15 primary schools or about 35-40 primary teachers, CRC was originally envisaged as a space for learning through educational dialogue among peers. The following functions were assigned to CRCs:

• capacity-building of teachers through provision of pedagogic support and

academic counseling to teachers;

• providing a forum for sharing of experiences, enabling peer group

interaction and learning;

• a continuing extension service for schools and teachers;

• development of teaching aids and instruction materials which are location-

specific;

• support base for Village Education Committees;

• establishing close linkage between Government schools and other

educational institutions in the cluster;

• establishing a system of feedback;

• holding of monthly training of cluster teachers; and

• evaluation work of students of Class I to V (half-yearly and annual).

– State Component Plan, BEP (DPEP – III), April 1997, p. 87.

At present, there are about 4,500 CRCs i.e. 10-12 per Block. Most of the CRCs have already been provided accommodation and the necessary facilities, normally located in a Middle School campus.

CRCs today function in a fragmented, inequitable and highly limited policy framework and objectives of school education. These limits are set by the inherent character of the DPEP first, and now the SSA. In the framework of Common School System being proposed by the Commission, their role and function has to be viewed in the new perspective of the obligation under Article 21-A of the Constitution to provide free and compulsory elementary education, universalisation of secondary education and a vast expansion of higher secondary education envisaged under the Common School System and the paradigm shift in the concept of curriculum and pedagogy that has taken place recently and which the Commission has sought to build into the Common School System.

Besides, there are a number of problems with the manner in which CRCs

are presently organized and function. For example, there is little scope for the teachers in the CRCs as presently organized, to build a critique of the prescribed curriculum and associated syllabi or to question the validity of the policy objectives which they are supposed to promote. Secondly, the decision to conduct annual examination at the end of class–V, through CRCs, goes against the widely accepted view that, at the elementary stage, there should be no annual examination at all; instead, it should be replaced by “continuous and comprehensive evaluation”. Thirdly, in the changed context of the role and functioning of the Panchayati Raj system, the responsibility for preparing educational plans now rests with these institutions. However the preparation of school education plans by the CRC teachers in isolation of PRIs is not a fruitful exercise. Fourthly, the practice of the Headmaster of the Middle School where the CRC meetings are held, acting as the convener of the CRC is not conducive to the effective functioning of these Centres. The Convener or the Coordinator of the CRC in order to be able to do full justice to her work, should function on a full- time basis. Fifthly, the functioning of CRCs is adversely affected by its hierarchical relationship with BRCs. This relationship is essentially based upon one-way flow of information and directions from BRCs to CRCs, rather than being firmly grounded on two-way academic exchange. More often than not, the CRC is placed in the unenviable position of acting as an agency or a ‘conveyer belt’ of ideas and directions it receives from the Block Resource Centres (BRCs) or higher authorities periodically. The outcome of mechanically following certain directions or pursuing activities is reflected in the lack of an organic emergence of new ideas from CRCs. Finally, participation in CRCs is restricted to the elementary stage and does not include teachers of secondary or senior secondary stages because of the logic dictated by the source of funds – SSA does not fund school education above elementary stage.

These practices must change, if we want this vast system of decentralized interaction and dialogue to lead to genuine capacity-building and empowerment of teachers, leading to qualitative improvement in schools.

In the light of the above discussion, the Commission makes the following recommendations for transforming the character of CRC into a Sankul Shikshak

Manch (SSM) or a Cluster Teachers’ Forum (CTF) which will act almost like

the same as defined by the Education Commission i.e. a forum for exchanging experiences, innovating and collectively building ideas and programmes for improvement. The following changes are called for in its method of functioning:

i) It shall act strictly as an autonomous professional forum of teachers

belonging to all schools functioning in its specified area.

ii) It shall not be in line hierarchy of Block-level, District-level and higher set- up and be free of bureaucratic control from above.

iii) The CRC Coordinator shall be a teacher nominated from among the participant-teachers, not necessarily in order of seniority. The identification and nomination of the Co-ordinator will be made entirely by the participating teachers themselves and the decision communicated to BEO for reference and records. Since the Co-ordinator will be expected to function on a full-time basis, the concerned school will be promptly provided with a substitute teacher who should, in due course of time, be absorbed as a regular teacher in the system.

iv) It will include teachers and Head Masters of schools at all levels – from pre- elementary to senior secondary stage. The reason why the CRCs should be a forum of teachers from the Primary to the Senior Secondary level, is that there is a long-standing policy view that the integrity of at least ten years of schooling (i.e. Classes I to X) must be respected and established in practice. The Education Commission (1964-66) not only advocated this view but further recommended that School Complexes be established where the teachers of the entire school system (from Class I to XII) can interact and together “promote educational advance”. The Education Commission contended that the School Complexes would help (a) break the terrible isolation under which each school functions; (b) enable a small group of schools working in a neighbourhood to make a cooperative effort to improve standards. In such an institutional structure, the primary and middle schools and their teachers would have the advantage of gaining functional access to the relatively better facilities of the secondary and senior secondary schools.

v) SSM will have the responsibility of undertaking comprehensive academic

supervision. This should make the notion of the conventional “inspection” unnecessary. The task of the BEO and other authorities may then be limited to administrative supervision. The Education Commission had first conceived this idea when it envisaged that “the Complex itself will perform certain delegated tasks which would otherwise have been performed by the inspecting officers of the Department . . . schools will gain in strength, will be able to exercise greater freedom and will help in making the system more elastic and dynamic (Report of the Education Commission, 1966, Section 10.39)”.

Comprehensive Academic Supervision

Some elaboration of the vision and implications of academic supervision is in order, especially when such an idea represents a radical shift from the colonial model of hierarchical and bureaucratic inspection. It has the following advantages:

1) Academic supervision by the SSM teachers will be among the peers, not by the bureaucracy;

2) The idea is founded on the principle of co-operative mode of collective development – academic supervision itself constitutes a process of recurrent in-service teacher education; and

3) It is expected to promote peer learning and capacity building.

A set of modalities are recommended below with a view to building upon the above basic principles and engage the Vidyalaya Shiksha Samitis (VSSs) in educational reform at school level:

a) Each SSM will make a plan of visiting all schools in pairs of teachers so that each school can be covered once every quarter;

b) Normally speaking, the academic supervision of primary and middle schools will be conducted by the teachers teaching at the elementary stage and of the senior secondary schools by the teachers teaching at the higher stage;

c) The SSM teachers shall work out the detailed methodology of academic supervision themselves in their meetings and evaluate the experience of implementing it from time to time. Each review of the methodology is expected to lead to an improved model of supervision;

d) The feedback reports from school visits shall be placed at SSM meetings and analysed collectively;

e) The lessons from the analysis of the feedback reports shall lead to sharing the lessons with (i) the concerned school (whose teachers are also members of SSM); (ii) all the schools of the specified area; and, more significantly, (iii) the members of the concerned VSS in a formal interaction at SSMs;

f) VSS will take follow-up action and apply corrective measures in pursuance of the recommendations of the SSM team, in all areas where it is itself competent to take action;

g) On other recommendations, VSS will approach (a) DIET/ SCERT for academic support to deal with the curricular or pedagogic issues emerging from the feedback reports or for organizing an in-service programme to build their teachers’ capacity to do so; (b) BEO for administrative or disciplinary action in case the VSS is unable to handle the problem;

h) The Block-level, District-level and higher officials of the proposed Directorate of School Education shall limit their role to administrative control, monitoring

and supervision of schools – academic supervision having been fully devolved to SSMs and follow-up action to VSS, with academic support from the DIETs and SCERT; and

i) Adequate financial resources must be provided to SSMs for effectively carrying out their responsibility towards academic supervision.

It is clear that the vision of academic supervision by peer teachers of SSMs for setting in a process of continuous reform of the quality of education calls for a paradigm shift in the policy framework and the system of educational administration.

B. Transforming Block Resource Centres (BRCs) or Prakhand Sansadhan