1.     Introduction

In the wake of the rapidly changing educational landscape, especially in the post-pandemic world, there has been a significant paradigm shift in how we assess educational systems. One of the notable developments in this shift is the inclusion of the “Teacher Education and Training” domain within the Performance Grading Index (PGI) 2021-22 used by the Ministry of Education, India. This addition not only underscores the critical role teachers play in shaping the future but also recognizes the need for well-prepared educators to navigate the evolving educational landscape. While this shift is commendable, it is equally important to scrutinize the indicators used to evaluate this domain. In this article, we delve into why the inclusion of teacher education and training in the PGI is a pivotal development and critically evaluate the indicators used. The article also outlines the need for more refined indicators to better assess teacher motivation and professional development and its subsequent impact on education systems.

2.     Performance Grading Index

The Performance Grading Index (PGI) is a comprehensive framework employed by the Ministry of Education, India, to assess the educational performance of states and union territories. It encompasses various aspects of the education system, providing valuable insights for informed policy decisions and continuous improvement. The PGI indicators serve as a vital tool in evaluating the effectiveness and progress of the education sector at both regional and national levels, ultimately contributing to the enhancement of educational outcomes across India. States are evaluated based on data collected from various sources, and are categorized based on their performance across various indicators that are grouped under five domains to present a picture of where each state and UT stands with respect to each other. The report is published annually by the Ministry of Education on its website.

3.     Teacher Education and Training as a new domain in PGI

The inclusion of the new domain, “Teacher Education and Training,” in the Performance Grading Index (PGI) since 2021-22 is critical because teachers are the cornerstone of any education system. From the perspective of PGI, the inclusion of the domain is a step towards addressing a perceived gap in the education system as it states that

The quality of teacher education, recruitment, deployment, service conditions, and empowerment of teachers is not where it should be, and consequently the quality and motivation of teachers does not reach the desired standards.

Effective teacher education and ongoing training are essential for ensuring that educators possess the necessary skills, knowledge, and pedagogical techniques to foster meaningful lifelong learning experiences for students.

By recognizing the importance through the inclusion of  this domain within the PGI, education authorities can potentially identify strengths and weaknesses in teacher preparation and professional development, leading to targeted interventions that enhance teaching quality and, ultimately, improve student outcomes. This move also acts as a driver for each State to lay further emphasis on teacher education and professional development since this domain contributes to 10% of the total PGI score of the State (explained in the next section).

Inclusion of the “Teacher Education and Training” domain with such a high weightage acknowledges the pivotal role teachers play in shaping the future and underscores the commitment to nurturing a skilled, motivated and dedicated teaching workforce. The PGI report 2021-22 clearly states

“The motivation and empowerment of teachers is required to ensure the best possible future for our children and our nation”.

4.     Indicators & Data Source

There are six domains in PGI with 73 indicators adding up to 1000 points. The overall score for each domain of the PGI is obtained by summing up the score for each indicator under the domain. The data for each indicator is collected through various sources, the biggest source being the data from UDISE+ (Unified District Information System for Education Plus), which is a comprehensive data platform, providing essential insights and statistics on the country’s educational landscape. Data collection for UDISE+ is an annual exercise (which is now slowly being transitioned to be a more dynamic data collection, monitoring and tracking system), wherein several parameters are self-reported by the schools, and some parameters are reported by the District and State authorities.

There are eight indicators used for the Teacher Education and Training domain, which sum up to a total weightage of 100 points, which is 10% of the total 1000 point PGI. This means that this domain has more weightage than the Access domain (7 indicators summing up to 80 points) and weighed almost as high as the Governance Processes domain (15 indicators summing up to 130 points). The indicators that have been chosen for this domain are as follows.

It is important to note that data for almost all these indicators have been a part of the UDISE+ data collection format for at least three years. The fact that these indicators have now been grouped to explicitly create a new domain under PGI reinforces the emphasis laid on, and shift in towards focus towards teacher education and training.

5.     Critical view of the indicators used

While it is commendable that Teacher education and training has been introduced as a domain in the PGI, a closer look at the indicators used for this domain reveals that there is scope for using better indicators.

Indicator 6.1 is related to teachers having the ability and the necessary training to support children with special needs (CWSN) in their classroom. This is a critical skill, essential to ensure that the classroom is an inclusive space, and that the teacher is able to facilitate differentiated support to enable learning for students with varying needs.

Indicator 6.2 seems to suggest that teachers should have the ability to provide career counselling and guidance to students. It is natural that students look up to their teachers for support and guidance on their careers and for guidance in their future trajectory in education. However, whether this indicator is relevant to all schools (including primary and upper primary schools) is questionable. Only in secondary and higher secondary classes do most of the students gain the necessary exposure and knowledge to understand various career paths (there are definite exceptions, which however, cannot be treated as examples). Therefore, the indicator may need to be tweaked to take into consideration only the teachers handling secondary and higher secondary classes in those schools. However, it still needs to be debated whether career support and guidance is a core part of a teacher’s role, and whether it is such an integral part of a teacher’s ongoing education and training, that it warrants 10 points in this domain.

It is unclear how having the unique ID of teachers keyed into a digital system correlates to better teacher education, training or motivation. It may perhaps be utilized to weed out duplicate profiles from the database, and streamline processes related to maintenance of teacher databases or other administrative processes. Therefore, Indicator 6.3 appears more suited to be placed under the Governance Processes domain than under the current domain.

It is evident that indicators 6.4 to 6.8 are related to ensuring that the minimum professional qualification required for teachers is met. A measure of the percentage of teachers meeting the basic professional qualifications to be a teacher is important, yet, considering the fact that this accounts of 75% of the total weightage of the domain, seems excessively skewed. It must also be taken into account that having the basic professional qualification neither ensures quality classroom transactions, nor does it ensure ongoing learning and development for the teacher

In summary, 75% of the weightage of the indicators used in this domain rests solely on one parameter, which hardly guarantees quality education or teacher development, 5% may be better fitted in another domain, and 10% is debatable. This leaves only 10% of the weight of the indicators actually having a strong alignment with the objective of the domain. It is also to be noted that the indicators are all input focused and not ouput focused. However, since ensuring the right inputs is a pre-requisite for attaining the desired outputs, this may be considered to be the starting point to ensure quality inputs before gradually starting to measure outputs.

6.     Choosing refined indicators from UDISE+

Collection of data on a scale as large as the nation is a major resource intensive task. Collecting new or different data points that are more relevant to the teacher training and education domain may be difficult. Therefore, it is prudent to perhaps first identify data points that are already collected and available through existing mechanisms before looking for alternative measures and methods to collect data for those measures.

The data source for all the indicators for this domain is UDISE+. The various data points collected in UDISE+ is detailed in the DCF 2021-22[1] (Data Collection Format). Section 3 of the DCF deals with data related to Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff.  This section details the data points collected as part of UDISE+ for every single teaching and non-teaching staff in the country. No additional effort is required since this data is already available in the ministry’s database. Therefore, the first point in the quest for better indicators of Teacher education and training begins here.

The following input focused data points collected are clearly relevant to teacher training.

19. Trained in computer for use and teaching

20a. Training received

21a. Total days of in-service training received in last academic year in BRC (days)

21b. Total days of in-service training received in last academic year in CRC (days)

21c. Total days of in-service training received in last academic year in DIET (days)

21d. Total days of in-service training received in last academic year in Others (days)

28. Whether trained in safety and security audit of school for ensuring child safety?

29. Whether received training on cyber safety and psychosocial aspects?

30. Whether received training in early identification support and classroom support of CWSN?

31. Whether having ICT training/ knowledge to conduct remote learning classes?

34. Whether trained in innovative pedagogy such as art integrated, sports integrated, story-telling, experiential or toy based?

35. Whether using innovative pedagogy such as art-integrated, sport-integrated, story-telling, experiential and toy-based pedagogies as evidenced from inspections by CRC/BRC?

36. Whether received training after conduct of NAS/ SAS / other third party assessment at the school?

38a. Whether received training in FLN-NISHTHA

There are also a few output focused data points collected in the same section.

32. Whether conducted remote learning classes in current academic session?

33. Average number of hours of ICT (computer, laptop, Television, Radio, other) used per week for teaching purposes?

35. Whether using innovative pedagogy such as art-integrated, sport-integrated, story-telling, experiential and toy-based pedagogies as evidenced from inspections by CRC/BRC?

38c. Whether developed e-content and uploaded on DIKSHA?

38d. Whether involved in creating any other type of offline/ online resources for teachers at cluster level, block level, district level, and State level?

38g. Developing own TLM for classroom transactions?

It is evident that there are several data points that are already being collected which are more pertinent and could reflect the status of teacher education and training in a more detailed and relevant manner. For example, focusing on the total number of training days for teachers in the calendar year (questions 21a to 21d) could provide insights into the emphasis laid by the state on ongoing teacher training. Similarly, the question on training on use of innovative pedagogy(question 34) can suggest how teachers are equipped to cater to various types of learners in their classroom, helping them achieve equitable education in their classroom.

It is also fascinating to observe that there are metrics that are output oriented, which when used as an indicator, could help shift the focus towards whether the given inputs (in terms of training) are actually reflecting as outputs in the system. A shift towards output oriented indicators could help administrators and educators shift the focus towards what is being achieved through the inputs rather than focusing on ensuring that more and more inputs are given.

7.     Identifying indicators aligned with teacher motivation & development

Identifying the right indicators for measuring teacher education and training is crucial because it directly impacts the quality of education and, ultimately, student outcomes. Shifting the focus towards indicators that improve teacher motivation and professional development is essential because when indicators prioritize these aspects, it fosters an environment where educators are committed to their students’ success. In addition, choosing better indicators promote lifelong learning, encouraging teachers to stay up-to-date with the latest teaching methods and technologies and provides an opportunity to retain teachers in their role by reducing burnouts.

Some examples of potential indicators are

·      Teacher Participation in Professional Learning Communities and frequency of teacher collaboration within the communities in each year.

·      Percentage of teachers involved in mentorship programs.

·      Teacher-reported work-life balance and job satisfaction.

·      Teacher engagement in webinars, online courses, and virtual conferences.

·      Number of teachers recognized by the district or state administration for their contribution to the students or teacher community annually.

These sample indicators align with the goal of enhancing teacher motivation and professional development, contributing to improved educational outcomes for students and the overall effectiveness of the education system.

8.     Conclusion

UNESCO published a report titled Transforming education from within: current trends in the status and development of teachers in 2022 in which one of the recommendations reads,

Recast teaching as a collaborative profession and reimagine professional development that employs communities of practice, mentorship programmes and peer-to-peer learning.

Several nations are already facing a crisis with respect to teacher retention due to lack of good working conditions, lack of competitive salaries and due to increased burnout. Shifting the focus of Teacher education and training towards retention of teachers by developing the motivation of teachers and providing access to a clear career progression pathway based on continuous learning is imperative.

Developing countries like India bank heavily on their human capital to drive innovation and growth. It is critical that the indicators used to measure teacher development are in the right direction, so that, as stated in the PGI report, quality and motivation of teachers can improve, and the best possible future for the children can be ensured.

*In case any references are missed out, kindly let me know and I shall be happy to include them.

*The article is a reflection of my experience of working with the UDISE+ data (gathering, cleaning, validating and submitting) and is my opinion and recommendation on what can be improved based on this experience and understanding.