Abstract
Professional engagement, agency, and autonomy of teachers have been imagined in specific ways through recent policy guidelines on teachers’ work in South Asia. This imagination is derived from empirical research that stresses the idea of teacher accountability through studies on teacher absenteeism, teacher unions, and the relative efficacy of private schools as compared to government schools. The new public management (NPM) discourse channelizing this imagination, through policies that can orient the work of teachers in government schools, suggests solutions such as contractual teachers, performance-based pay, increased monitoring and surveillance, and para-skilling of teachers – either explicitly or by implication.
This chapter, after examining the contours of the above discourse, draws attention to the institutional context of teachers’ work in South Asia and alternative approaches that have mobilized both teachers and teacher unions toward educational reforms. The imaginations of the professional identity of the teachers and their role as policy actors are seen to be distinctively different when explored through this lens: political beings endowed with critical, reflexive agency who are able to engage with their professional beliefs and practice in productive and transformative ways, as compared to the NPM imagination that regards teachers as willful deterrents of educational reforms.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ailaan, A. (2014). The voice of teachers: Learning from teachers across Pakistan. Islamabad: Alif Ailaan.
Aiyar, Y., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). The post office paradox: A case study of the block level education bureaucracy. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(11), 61–69.
Aiyar, Y., Dongre, A., & Davis, V. (2015). Education reforms, bureaucracy and the puzzles of implementation: A case study from Bihar. London: International Growth Centre.
Ali, T. (2018). Raising teachers’ voices: An in-depth qualitative inquiry into teachers’ working conditions and professional development needs in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a province of Pakistan. Teacher Development, 22(1), 78–104.
Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja, A. I. (2015). Report cards: the impact of providing school and child test scores on educational markets. Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 7226; Impact Evaluation series Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/789721468191341184/Report-cards-the-impact-of-providing-school-and-child-test-scores-on-educational-markets.
Ashley, L. D., Mcloughlin, C., Aslam, M., Engel, J., Wales, J., Rawal, S., & Rose, P. (2014). The role and impact of private schools in developing countries. Final report. Education Rigorous Literature Review. Retrieved from http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/HumanDev_Evidence/Private-schools-2014.pdf
Atherton, P., & Kingdon, G. (2010). The relative effectiveness and costs of contract and regular teachers in India. Working Paper 15, Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE) University of Oxford.
Aturupane, H., Glewwe, P., Ravina, R., Sonnadara, U., & Wisniewski, S. (2014). An assessment of the impacts of Sri Lanka’s program for school improvement and school report card program on students’ academic progress. The Journal of Development Studies, 50(12), 1647–1669.
Azim Premji Foundation. (2016). Starting and sustaining voluntary teacher forums: Experience from Tonk, Rajasthan (Field studies in education). Bangalore: Azim Premji University. Retrieved from https://azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/SitePages/pdf/Field-Studies-In-Education-Starting-and-sustaning-VTFs-Oct-2016.pdf
Azim Premji Foundation. (2017). Evolution of cluster-level monthly meetings as a forum for continuous professional development of teachers: Experiences from Uttarakhand (Field studies in education). Bangalore: Azim Premji University. Retrieved from https://azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/SitePages/pdf/Cluster-monthly-meetings-Uttarakhand-Sept-2017.pdf
Azim Premji Foundation. (2018). Enabling peer learning and collaboration among teachers: Case studies from Yadgir (Karnataka), Almora (Uttarakhand) and Kivarli (Rajasthan) (Field studies in education). Bangalore: Azim Premji University. Retrieved from https://azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/SitePages/pdf/Compendium-Collaboration-and-Peer-Learning-Case-Studies-Field-Studies-in-Education-Jul-2018.pdf
Banerjee, A. V., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Khemani, S. (2010). The pitfalls of participatory programs: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(1), 1–30.
Barrera-Osorio, F., & Raju, D. (2017). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Public Economics, 148, 75–91.
Basu, K. (2006). Teacher truancy in India: the role of culture, norms and economic incentives. New York: Cornell University.
Batra, P. (2005). Voice and agency of teachers: Missing link in national curriculum framework 2005. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(40), 4347–4356.
Behar, A. (2018). The solution lies with teachers. Seminar. Retrieved from http://www.india-seminar.com/2018/706/706_anurag_behar.htm
Bennell, P., & Akyeampong, K. (2007). Teacher motivation in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (Educational paper no. 71). London: DFID.
Béteille, T., Kingdon, G. G., & Muzammil, M. (2016). Teacher unions in India: Diverse and powerful. In T. Moe & S. Wiborg (Eds.), The comparative politics of education: Teachers unions and education systems around the world (pp. 239–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudhury, N., & Parajuli, D. (2010). Giving it back: Evaluating the impact of devolution of school management to communities in Nepal (Unpublished manuscript). World Bank, Washington, DC.
DASRA. (2010). Making the grade: Improving Mumbai’s public schools. Online Report. Retrieved from http://www.dasra.org/n/forwebsite/dasra/Reports/MakingtheGrade.pdf
Duflo, E., Hanna, R., & Ryan, S. P. (2012). Incentives work: Getting teachers to come to school. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1241–1278.
Dundar, H., Béteille, T., Ribound, M., & Deolalikar, A. (2014). Student learning in South Asia: Challenges, opportunities, and policy priorities. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Dyer, C. (2000). Operation Blackboard: Policy implementation in Indian elementary education. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Fontdevila, C., & Verger, A. (2015). The World Bank’s doublespeak on teachers: An analysis of ten years of lending and advice. Brussels: Education International.
Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.
Government of India (GoI). (2016). Economic survey 2016–2017. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance.
Goyal, S., & Pandey, P. (2009). Contract teachers (South Asian human development sector, Report no. 28). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Halder, P., & Rana, K. (2010). Dialoguing development: Glimpses of the Pratichi Trust’s public workshops (Pratichi occasional paper no. 5). New Delhi, Kolkata: Pratichi Trust.
Hall, D., Gunter, H., & Bragg, J. (2013). Leadership, new public management and the re-modelling and regulation of teacher identities. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 173–190.
Kingdon, G. G. (2020). The private schooling phenomenon in India: A review. The Journal of Development Studies, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1715943
Kremer, M., Chaudhury, N., Rogers, F. H., Muralidharan, K., & Hammer, J. (2005). Teacher absence in India: A snapshot. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2–3), 658–667.
Kumar, K. (2018). Diagnostic trouble. Seminar. Retrieved from http://www.india-seminar.com/2018/706/706_krishna_kumar.htm
Majumdar, M. (2011). Politicians, civil servants or professionals? Teachers’ voices on their work and worth. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 8(1), 33–65.
Mooij, J. (2008). Primary education, teachers’ professionalism and social class about motivation and demotivation of government school teachers in India. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(5), 508–523.
Mukhopadhyay, R., & Sarangapani, P. M. (2018). Introduction: Education in India between the state and market – Concepts framing the new discourse: Quality, efficiency, accountability. In M. Jain, A. Mehendale, R. Mukhopadhyay, P. M. Sarangapani & C. Winch (Eds.), School education in India: Market, state and quality (pp. 1–27). London: Routledge.
Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2013). Contract teachers: Experimental evidence from India. JPAL Working Paper. Available at: http://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/extra-contract-teachers-andhra-pradesh-india.
Muralidharan, K. (2012). Long-term effects of teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence From India. (JPAL working paper). San Diego: University of California.
Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2011). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39–77.
Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2013). Contract teachers: Experimental evidence from India (National bureau of economic research no. w19440).
Muralidharan, K., Das, J., Holla, A., & Mohpal, A. (2016). The fiscal cost of weak governance: Evidence from teacher absence in India (Policy research working paper 7579). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Nambissan, G. (2014). Poverty, markets and elementary education in India. Working Paper no. 3 Transnational Research Group, German Historical Institute, London. Retrieved from http://www.perspectivia.net/publikationen/trg-working-papers/nambissan_markets.
Narayan, K., & Mooij, J. (2010). Solutions to teacher absenteeism in rural government primary schools in India: A comparison of management approaches. The Open Education Journal, 3, 63–71.
Nawani, D. (2015). Rethinking assessment in schools. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(3), 37–42.
Niesz, T., & Ryan, K. (2018). Teacher ownership versus scaling up system-wide educational change: The case of Activity Based Learning in South India. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 17(3), 209–222.
Niranjanaradhya, V. P. (2014). Community participation and institutional experiences in school education: School development and monitoring committees in Karnataka. New Delhi: Oxfam India. Retrieved from https://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/wp-communityparticipation-and-institutional-experience-in-school-education_0_0.pdf
Pandey, P., Goyal, S., & Sundararaman, V. (2008). Public participation, teacher accountability and school outcomes: Findings from baseline surveys in three Indian states (World Bank policy research working paper 4777). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Pandey, P., Goyal, S., & Sundararaman, V. (2011). Does information improve school accountability? Results of a large randomized trial (South Asia human development sector report no. 49). New Delhi: The World Bank.
Pritchett, L. (2015). Creating education systems coherent for learning outcomes: Making the transition from schooling to learning (Research on improving systems of education (RISE). RISE-WP-15/005). Oxford: RISE.
Priyam, M. (2012). Aligning opportunities and interests: the politics of educational reform in the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar (Doctoral dissertation, The London School of Economics and Political Science).
Ramachandran, V., Béteille, T., Linden, T., Dey, S., Goyal, S., & Chatterjee, P. G. (2018). Getting the right teachers into the right schools: Managing India’s teacher workforce (World Bank studies). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ramachandran, V., Das, D., Nigam, G., & Shandilya, A. (2020). Contract teachers in India: Recent trends and current status (unpublished draft).
Sankar, D. (2013). Improving early childhood development through community mobilization and integrated planning for children (SASHD discussion paper series no. 59). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Sankar, D., & Linden, T. (2014). How much and what kind of teaching is there in elementary education in India? Evidence from three states (South Asia: Human development sector no. 67). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Sarangapani, P. M., & Mehendale, A. (2013). Multi-grade Multilevel (MGML) programme in Chhattisgarh: An Evaluation. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Science.
Sarangapani, P. M., Mukhopadhyay, R., & Parul, J. A. (2018). Recovering the practice and profession of teaching. In M. Jain, A. Mehendale, R. Mukhopadhyay, P. M. Sarangapani, & C. Winch (Eds.), School education in India: Market, state and quality (pp. 123–138). London: Routledge.
Sarkar, M., & Rana, K. (2010). Roles and responsibilities of the teachers’ unions in the delivery of primary education: A case of West Bengal. Delhi, Kolkata: Pratichi Trust.
Sriprakash, A. (2012). Pedagogies for development: The politics and practice of child-centred education in India. New York: Springer.
Srivastava, P. (2016). Questioning the global scaling up of low-fee private schooling: The nexus between business, philanthropy, and PPPs. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2016: The global education industry (pp. 248–263). New York: Routledge.
UNESCO. (2008). Global monitoring report: Education for All by 2015: Will we make it? Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO Pakistan. (2006). Situation analysis of teacher education: Towards a strategic framework for teacher education and professional development. Islamabad: USAID.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Mukhopadhyay, R., Ali, S. (2020). Teachers as Agents and Policy Actors. In: Sarangapani, P., Pappu, R. (eds) Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia. Global Education Systems. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_29-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_29-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3309-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3309-5
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education