Education is dynamic so as all the
institution, factors, and stakeholder’s influencing education. There are needs
for inherent shift from conventional understanding of education. Education
policy needs urgent redressal in some area especially attitudinal shift.
As
I visit schools and office in different part of Sirohi district, interacting
with Teachers, Head Teachers, SMC members and govt. education functionaries at
some point of discussion the term Monitoring was often mentioned. Most
of them considered lack of monitoring as one reason why huge investment in
education thus not translates to children’s learning. Webster dictionary
defined monitoring as one that
warns or instructs and to
watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose. The literal
meaning of monitoring has a connotation of superior level officers demanding results
and reason from the lower functionaries of their action. In specific to
education ideally monitoring means collect feedback and information, analyze
the feedback and information collected, and translate it into applicable term,
check the flow of resources and project status, maintenance of documents, etc.
all directed towards productive outcome.
When
they say lack of monitoring they mean to say monitoring of Teachers, Head
Teachers, and Functionaries. This is very true and justifiable. And I don’t
have any problem with it unless their meaning of monitoring does not mean
scrutinizing, make vigilant watch and constant interruption with an intention
of punishing or sanctioning penalty on the wrong doers. But, the attitude
of most of the teachers, head teachers, and education functionaries as they
coined monitoring is defined on the light of suspicions, lesser regards,
judgmental and contempt directly questioning the integrity, a grief concern to
worry about. In the light of this attitude it is not possible to attain the actual
purpose of monitoring. It will simply end up creating conflict and chaos in
their daily activities.
Another
drawback of implementation of monitoring according to their understanding is
the overlaps of their choice of people to be monitored. In the eyes of
teachers, head teachers should be monitored by functionaries and functionaries
should be monitored by concern authority they are accountable to. Whereas in
the eyes of district level functionaries teachers and head teachers should be
monitored well by head teachers (for teachers), nodal head teachers and concern
block level functionaries. Keeping in mind the numbers of the school,
geographical areas of the schools it is impossible to drain huge amount of
their time and resources to monitor one another at multiple level. It may
simply end-up exhausting resources and valuable time and jam their work. Is it possible to employ robust human
capital to monitor in all levels? Do we end up exhausting in the means not
achieving the ends?
Thus,
important question we need to ask is, Are ground level functionaries and
education stakeholders prepared for decentralization of educational institute
in its functioning? Failures of many
national level educational programs are attributed to top- down approached
(commonly known as bill passed from AC room). Now a new approached has been on
top priority i.e. a bottom-up approached and decentralization of institution.
Will the bottom level or functionaries at the district or block level be able
to accomplished the rested expectation upon them? Can they translate autonomy
given to them in maintaining accountability or will it be just another phase
where outcomes are predetermined with negative connotation and huge loss of
resources and precious time?
We
have problematized the educational issue before us and almost all the
attributes of the failure of educational investment and programs are directed
towards system, strategy, approached and lack of resources. Have we not
overlooked the attitudinal issue of the entire stalk holder involved? How
necessary is it for a person intrinsically submerges his line of duty to be
monitored? Is
it important to align their intrinsic personal values and help them introspect
what they wanted to be as a human being and where they are moving forward. Or have
they just compromised their role with the status and the remuneration in return
of their role at question?
