Teaching vs Teachers — Who gets to be the victim?
When 6–7 people share an article with me, and it is one by Prof KK, it is clear that I am surrounded by the right people. I have delighted in gobbling up his thoughts and perspectives. And yet, it would be unbecoming of me to not analyse even his words.
Consider a teacher, wise, calm, very caring of the student, erudite and deeply immersed in the learning of things, deeply versed in the nuances of how the mind misconceives the world around us and forms models that are ineffective, very competent in understanding the role and play of language in the learning of any subject, deeply philosophical about learning and life, deeply practical about the way of things, deeply insightful about what path works best for each student, constantly up to date with the matters of the world, an excellent colleague, basically, a dream.
It clearly seems that Prof KK assumes that every teacher is that or on the path to that state. Starting with such an assumption, I see why he feels they are the victims and that they are dying and pining to be included in policy discussions and are pulling at the chains that hold them back from becoming a better version of themselves.
There are two major fallacies in Prof KK’s article and I shall ignore the minor ones to focus on these.
Teachers as victims
I have been in several workshops, webinars, school visits and much more to have a more realistic count of such amazing teachers. And it is only that coterie which can be termed victims, as Prof KK does.
When teachers, by the millions, simply want to get that govt. teacher’s job so that “they will never be thrown out” and they can make money on the side, we are unfairly calling them victims. When teachers, by the millions, simply take up a teachers job because their husband transferred to there or that it is a good stop-gap option till they have kids or is the least demanding job allowing them to take care of family, we are unfairly calling them a victim. The most common occupation of military officer’s wives is teaching. When teachers, by the millions, will do whatever it takes to find means to buy things online or find their favourite songs or movies or learn about the latest filters for their IG selfies (sic) but will find some excuse or the other to not update their knowledge or skills, we are unfairly calling them a victim.
Teaching, as a way of shaping minds & attitudes for our immediate and global society, has fallen victim to the very people who desire it as well as those who populate its ranks.
Teaching as a profession is a victim to the ways of a developing country (and a spokesperson from ILO’s recent survey confirmed that a few developed countries pay their teachers well and have lesser instances of burnout, etc.); not teachers. To confuse these two is not fair. The reader might wail that “teaching” and “teachers” are essentially the same. I would beg to differ. Teaching is what we as a society and political structure managing this society have defined. Teachers are people who either accept that definition or play with that definition or (in the rare case) rise above that. If “teaching” and its expectations are fixed, those who can be teachers are automatically addressed.
Teaching has not been understood by those who craft policies, fix salaries or even those who seek them — parents and communities — and sadly, not by teachers as well. Policy makers will academically shift from 10+2 to 5+3+3+4 without having the spine to fix the transition to higher education which is what, unfortunately, decides what is taught and how in K-12. Prof KK obfuscates by calling MCQs the invention of coaching industries and further confuses by saying that MCQs make teacher conform. It is the DU, IIT, AIIMS and NITs or rather NTA that dictates the entrance exam format which coaching centres adopt leaving schools wondering about their relevance. Policy makers, MoE, NCERT, UGC and the notorious NTA do not value education, learning and teaching. They aren’t thinking about teachers.
All that has been mentioned in the article points to a gross lack of value for education and being educated in the right manner. All that is increasing in value is the ability to get into top universities and be placed handsomely. We as a society do not respect learning, education, schooling and hence, teaching. With teachers and principals treating education the way it is being treated, teaching is a victim and not teachers. Teachers are not keen on studying policy with reasons such as boring, not trained to analyse policy, language, etc. They are happy to come and execute to the textbook (without realising that a textbook is merely a reference and should be used only to resolve conflicts). This is not an urban vs rural issue (as Prof KK puts). It is not a state board vs CBSE vs IB issue. Of the 250+ million totally enrolled teachers (and 11M+ in service) in India there are barely a few hundred or thousands (if I am to be irrationally generous) who have defined their profession/vocation on their (or universally accepted) terms of authenticity and absolute goodness. They strive for it every day without giving excuses. They model what it means to be a model citizen and human being and curious learner along with the mastery of unpacking the learning process.
Teaching as a profession is held ransom by the very teachers in the system.
His arguments about dismantling teacher unions and oppressive CCTVs are feeble, at best. I spent some time trying to gather the causes of any teacher union strike and it was never about the nature of assessments or how they want to be able to use a new pedagogical method or anything to do with their own professional enhancement. It has always been about salaries and hours or other matters of discomfort. Sure, these are important but are these all? I am yet to meet a teacher who has even mentioned the CCTV cameras when I have asked them about their top 3–5 problems. Most didn’t even register the presence of a CCTV setup. Even those who are monitoring them show zest in the initial few days and then it becomes the most neglected task. Everyone, on the other hand, confirm to the value of CCTV and its role in ensuring safety. I won’t even go into his point on “uploading evidence” and the loss of autonomy. In most cases, nobody responds to the uploaded data (remember CCE?) and when they do, it is usually from those who are knowledgeable in interpreting and analysing such data. I find it difficult to understand how uploading evidence can rob one of autonomy.
Most teachers struggle to take an abstract concept and apply it to their own area of expertise (rather, familiarity). In nearly every workshop on Bloom’s taxonomy (and, recently, on competence based assessment/education), every teacher wants to know how “that” would look like in their subject or even in a particular chapter that they are currently teaching. Even at a recent gathering where I was neither audience nor presenter the refrain was “Your examples are all in Science. Do you think this is possible in Maths?” quickly joined by a “What about History?” and “English?” leaving the presenters in a state of thinking on their feet. I would blame both the presenters as well as the audience (teachers). But the presenters were at least clear that they were selling a business with this scope. Whether it is Bloom’s cognitive levels (and ask around how many know DoK, SOLO, Marzano) or differentiation or CBE or misconceptions etc. the ability to go from abstract to specific and then metacogitate to generic is largely absent in most teachers and even principals. Why then must they be forcibly included in policy design and framework architecting? I am not making a case for excluding them but merely calling blind inclusion as being naive. Those who have that capacity and competence must surely be identified and included in policy and framework discussions while leaving the rest to go about their business.
Anyone can teach
The game in the picture above was played with various names. In every instance of the game, the first level had all of us dance and nonchalantly walk over the basic hurdle. There was practically a mockery of that bar.
No two surgeons are confused about what it takes to be a surgeon. No two cricketers are divided on what it takes to be a cricketer. No two policemen are confused on what it takes to be a police officer. Any duo of teachers will give you half a dozen kinds of teachers and how to become each. Add to this the utterly pointless platitudes that plague the teaching profession — it is not what you teach but how you made them feel, or how you made a difference in their lives, etc. These are true about every single person we meet — the shopkeeper, the McDonald’s clerk, the ticket collector, etc. I might not remember the exact bill amount but I will remember if the waiter was polite or rude or any extremity of human behaviour. Why make that so important of a teacher? That leads to people thinking that all that matters is care giving and most women rush to that job description because they believe they are natural care givers (and the number of cruel primary teachers I have met!). This explains the dearth of men in early child education. But with such a low bar (make them feel happy) why do we blame people for assuming that anyone can teach? And where it is not this bar it is another bar of content competence — if I am very good at solving maths problems I am a great maths teacher. I recall my IIT entrance exam prep teacher — KSR — wonderfully sweet person, very affectionate to his grandchildren and daughter, bright mind but all he did was give us a bunch of problems on palm-sized slips and never bothered to go into the why or how or anything remotely teacherly. If I speak English very well, I can be an English teacher (a school principal in Jalandhar actually told me this). With content fluency as a bar, a whole group of people cross it with the least effort. At least the coaching centres that Prof KK holds in such low regard have a clearly defined goal and deliverable against which they can be held.
Can you name surgeons or supreme court judges or architects or chartered accountants who started out as software engineers or waiters or taxi drivers? Yet there are many very wise and insightful people who started out in some other professions before becoming teachers. There are a growing number of tales of women and men who, after finding nothing worthy for their child, took a plunge into education and have actually done remarkably well, if not better than your accredited teachers. Anyone with money and real estate starts a school and become a voice in education.
What about teaching can’t be learnt or is impossibly difficult to learn by one who wants to? I do not understand Prof KK’s impassioned protectionism of the teaching profession (as it is and not the ideal state). While not everyone is ready to teach without the necessary exposure, most deliver on the basic minimum that is expected of teaching. Institutionally, we feel that a person who completed their B.A. Political Science and immediately followed it up with a B.Ed. (History) is eligible to teach, while a pilot has 250+ hours to clock followed by endorsements and maybe several more hours on multi-engine or single-engine vehicle. No fresh MBBS will operate on you!
This is not an abuse meted out to teachers (esp. since they are benefiting from the low bar) but to the profession of teaching at multiple levels and from multiple sources, ironically, including from teachers.
Now imagine an India where teaching is regarded thus:
One teaches to impart and stoke the best in the person in front of you. One isn’t a subject expert as much as a learning expert. One is able to navigate the psychological crevices of the student and work with them through their learning till mastery is attained — in subject, in dispositions, in reflection and in continuing to seek. This teacher is equally adept at all subjects (except, maybe, vernacular language) up to grade 10. They are equally competent with technology, sports, games, music, arts and dance, etc. They are deeply knowledgeable about indigenous knowledge systems as well as AI or blockchain.
Schools are started only by those who have been deeply involved in teaching and have managed to collect a group of like minded souls. Where teaching is intimate and the goal is to keep surpassing the goal. The teacher is widely and deeply knowledgeable as well as wise and practical. S/He is adept at creating circumstances (assessments, if you must call them that) to elicit possession of knowledge and competences at various levels (and not merely at Mastery level). The teacher cares and nurtures the body, mind, spirit and potential of the student.
I haven’t mentioned anything about salary or status or respect. I have also not mentioned anything about work-life balance or hours kept, etc. The expectation from teachers in that world would be as appropriate for such an important role. Such an expectation if mandated in India, will result in the 11M+ dwindling down to a few hundreds, at best. Teaching, as a profession, would become an intentional pursuit and not a fallback option. Teaching, as a profession, will then command the respect it should. Teaching, as a profession, would have its own standards. Teaching, as a profession, would have a singular path to adoption (like that of becoming a surgeon or army officer or pilot) which would reflect the apposite strife and ascesis required to yield the gold that teachers should be made of.
Our repeated appeal to the victimisation of the teachers only distracts us from the main issue — our collective failure in defining teaching as the most crucial function of society and upholding its standards.
