TEI: Suggestions on Re-structuring DIETs

1. TEI: Suggestions on Re-structuring DIETs Presentation to States on Dec 15, 2012

2. Current issues

3. Visionfunctionmeta-structureinfrastructure, personnel, activities, internal organisational structure

4. What role does the State Education Department want DIETs to play?

7. Wanted a change

8. Need of the hour: institutional character • The Institution must emerge as an autonomous Institution, with EACH DIET defining and evolving its particular institutional character. The DIET must cease to function as the district arm of the DSERT. • 2. By focusing on and developing a core identity around either Teacher Professional Development or School Improvement, the Institution can acquire overall direction. • Adequate infrastructure befitting a key District level institution as well as finances to carry out a variety of activities are also an imperative for Institutional recovery. • 4. Breaking out of the current insularity by more vibrant involvement with NGOs and institutes of higher education through various collaborations is imperative. • 5. The appointment of the Principal of the DIET MUST be through selection only and s/he must have a minimum tenure of 3-years in the Institute.

9. Financial and personnel • Timely and adequate release of funds is of crucial importance to DIET functioning. • While encadrement can assure dedicated academic personnel, it would still not completely solve the problems created by transfers and also by lack of expertise and insularity. Open-selection and movement between institutions through open selections would enhance institutional affiliations and identity. • Rather than deficit approach to capacity building—proactive professional upgradation through advanced courses at universities. NOT ORIENTATION • Can have visiting and other types of faculty including 3 year fellowships for teachers

10. Key focus areas: • (a) District specificity and orientation in their overall activities: in particular in areas such as district specific material development, research and action-reseach programmes for special groups in the District. • (b) Linkages and Support to teacher professional development—secondary, elementary & preschool • (c) Linkages and methods of academically monitoring and supervising school improvement/school development. • (d) Serving as a Education Resource Centre.

11. Approaches to school improvement Four core areas School Functioning Academic Work Equity Community

12. 2 broad directions for DIET

13. Approach A: plan, manage district academic needs through teacher devpt Regular monitoring of BRCs, CRCs and schools Outsources expertise needed for INSET programs Consolidates data relating to school quality and provide feedback to BRC, CRCs Runs a Resource Center DIET faculty to act as block support

14. Approach B: In-house expertise to guide school quality and teacher ed Expertise constitutes knowledge and understanding of subjects, pedagogy and research/documentation/analysis. Develops training programs and supports MRPs Monitors school quality through visits and research Runs resource centers DIET faculty support the blocks

15. Faculty profiles

16. Working groups

17. Where can the linkage with the University be established? • Capacity building: short term and long term courses for faculty in specialisation areas: child development, foundations of education, pedagogy of mathematics, etc. school leadership, policy studies, gender and education, etc. • Open academic discussion forum • Renewal of teacher education curriculum PSTE& INSET • Joint action research programmes and material development • Faculty exchange: DIET visiting faculty positions in university and vice-versa

18. Thank you