Apoliticaleconomyof educationinIndia:Thecaseof UttarPradesh

GeetaKingdon InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon Mohd.Muzammil DepartmentofEconomics,LucknowUniversity

September2008

GeetaKingdonisaResearchFellowatOPIandChairof EducationEconomicsandInternationalDevelopmentatthe InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.g.kingdon@ioe.ac.uk

Mohd.MuzammilisProfessorofEconomicsattheDepartmentof Economics,LucknowUniversity,UttarPradesh,India. mmuzammil@rediffmail.com

PublishedbyOxfordPolicyInstitute OxfordPolicyInstitute ISBN9780955112355

Abstract

Theeffectivenessofthearrangementsgoverninganeducationalsystem dependsonthemotivationsofkeyactors.Thispaperanalysesthestate ofeducationintheIndianstateofUttarPradeshandtherolethat teachershaveplayedinthepoliticalprocess.Itdescribeshowteachers havebecomeembeddedinthepoliticalsystemandthewayteacher associationsandunionshaveactivelypursueddemandsthrough variousstrikesandotherformsofactions.Whileteachershavebeen successfulinimprovingpay,jobsecurityandservicebenefits,less progresshasbeenmadeonbroaderimprovementsintheschooling systemsuchasthepromotionofeducationingeneralorimproving equityandefficiencyinthesystem.

Thisisanupdatedandshortenedversionofapaperpublishedbythe authorsintheEconomicandPoliticalWeekly,36(32),inAugust2001.

ApoliticaleconomyofeducationinIndia:ThecaseofUttar Pradesh Introduction Whiletherehasbeenencouragingprogressoverthelastfifteenyearsin termsofincreasedschoolenrolmentrates,therearecontinuing concernsabouteducationinIndia,especiallyintermsofthequalityof education.Debatescontinueabouttheroleandefficacyofreforms suchaseducationaldecentralisation,useofcontractteachers(para teachers),curriculumreform,theprovisionofmiddaymealsandthe useofsecondtrackapproachessuchastheEducationGuarantee Schemeschools.However,theroleofkeyactors,theteachersandtheir unions,hasreceivedscantattentioninthesediscussions.Yetitis importanttoaskwhetherthereisaconflictofinterestthatcauses teacherunionstoopposeeducationalreformsandtoassessthe implicationsofteacherspoliticalandunionbasedactivitiesforthe functioningoftheeducationsectorasawhole. UsingthestateofUttarPradesh(UP)asanexample,thispaper assemblesevidencetosuggestthatteachersandtheirunionsare criticaltounderstandingsomeofthefailingsofIndianpubliceducation. AccordingtoDrzeandGazdar(1997,p7677),themoststriking weaknessoftheschoolingsysteminruralUttarPradeshisnotsomuch thedeficiencyofphysicalinfrastructureasthepoorfunctioningofthe existingfacilities.Thespecificproblemofendemicteacher absenteeismandshirking,whichemergedagainandagaininthe courseofourinvestigation,playsacentralpartinthatfailure.Thisisby farthemostimportantissueofeducationpolicyinUttarPradeshtoday. ThePROBEReport(1999)recognisedthisandlinkedteacher absenteeismandshirkingpartlytothedisempoweringenvironmentin whichtheteachershavetowork.However,italsosays,yet,the deteriorationofteachingstandardshasgonemuchtoofartobe explainedbythedisempowermentfactoralone...Generallyspeaking, teachingactivityhasbeenreducedtoaminimumintermsofbothtime andeffort.Andthispatternisnotconfinedtoaminorityofirresponsible teachersithasbecomeawayoflifeintheprofession(PROBE Report,1999,p63).Itlinkedlowteacherefforttoalackoflocallevel

accountability.This,inturn,hasitsrootsinteachersowndemandsfor acentralisededucationsystem,asdiscussedlaterinthispaper. Otherauthorstoohavenotedlaxteacherattitudesandlackofteacher accountability.MyronWeinerinhisbookTheChildandtheStatein India(Weiner,1991)reportsinterviewswithanumberofstakeholdersin educationwhoexpressconcernsincludingthefollowing: Theteachersarentanygood.Oftentheydontevenappearat theschool.p.57(senioreducationofficial) theteachersdonotcareItisnotbecauseteachersarebadly paidEducationiswellpaidnowandtheteachersare organisedbuttheydonotteach.Ifwedontrespectthemitis becauseweseethemdoingotherbusinessthanteaching.P. 59(ElaBhatt,anAhmedabadsocialactivist) theteachersinthegovernmentschoolsareindifferent.They havetheirunionandtheydonotthinkaboutacademics.Once teachersentertheschoolsystem,theycannotbeterminated. Nooneiseverterminated.Thecruxoftheproblemineducation isthelackofinterestbytheteachersinthechildren.Theydont careaboutresultsandwecannotcompeltheteacherto teach!.P.66(TheSecretaryofPrimaryEducationinGujarat, Mr.Gordhanbhai) theproblemiswiththeteachers.Theyarenotaccountableto thestudents.P.70(Dr.V.Kulkarni,physicistturned educationalresearcherandteachertrainer)

Thispaperarguesthatthelackofteacheraccountabilityisrootedin teacherdemandsforacentralisedmanagementstructureineducation. Thedatasourcesforthisstudyaregovernmentdocumentsand statistics,includingUPsecretariatpublications,academicpublications, interviewswithteacherunionleadersandeducationofficials, newspaperreports,theReportoftheNationalCommissionon Teachers,CentralAdvisoryBoardofEducation(CABE,1992) documentsandthepublisheddebatesoftheConstituentAssembly.

Teachers,education,andpolitics Twofactorshelptoexplainthedynamicsofthepoliticaleconomyof educationinIndia.First,teachershaveguaranteedrepresentationin theupperhouseofthestatelegislature.Second,teachersinprivate `aidedschools,althoughgovernmentpaidworkers,areallowedto contestelectionstothelowerhousesincetheyarenotdeemedtohold anofficeofprofitunderthegovernment.Asaresultthereis substantialrepresentationofteachersinbothhousesofparliament.In addition,thedistrictlevelchiefsofmanyprominentpoliticalpartiesare fromtheteachingcommunity.Evenintheearly1970sGould(1972:94) observedthatpoliticalpenetrationoftheeducationsystemhasgonefar inUttarPradesh.Inthisrespecttheprovinceisprobablynotuniquein India,butitstandsoutwhencomparedwithmanyothers.Gouldalso observedthatinalldemocraticsocieties,continuousdebateand competitionoccursoverwhoshallcontroleducationandforwhat purpose.Thequestion,inotherwords,isnotwhetherpoliticsor politiciansshallinfluenceeducationalprocesses,buthowandtowhat degreetheywilldoso.ThisistherealissueinIndiatoday.Susanne Rudolph(RudolphandRudolph,1972)statesthematteraptlyas follows,wedonotassume,asisoftenassumed,thatthereissucha thingasaneducationalsystemfreeofpoliticalintervention.Ina democraticsocietyandineducationalinstitutionswhichreceive governmentfunds,therewillbepoliticalinfluenceTherealquestions focusondistinguishingwhattypeofpoliticalpressureandpoliticisation isbenignandwhatnot...whethereducationalpurposesaresubsumed bythepoliticalsystem,orwhetherpoliticsbecomesameansfor strengtheningorredefiningeducationalgoals. Teachersstatusintheconstitutionalprovisions Article171(3c)oftheConstitutionofIndiastatesthatonetwelfthofthe membersoftheStateLegislativeCouncilshallbeelectedbyelectorates consistingofpersonswhohavebeenforatleastthreeyearsengagedin teachingatthesecondaryorhigherlevels.TheConstitutiongrants votingrightstoalimitednumberofgroups,includingteachers,toelect MembersoftheLegislativeCouncil(MLCs).ThesegroupsareMembers oftheLegislativeAssembly(MLAs),membersofLocalBodies, graduatesoftheStateandteachersinsecondaryschoolsandabove.It

isnoteworthythatnoothercivilservantshavebeengiventhespecial statusenjoyedbyteachers. TheGovernmentofIndiaAct1919providedthatnogovernmentservant couldbecomeamemberofthelegislature.Ifapersonhelda governmentjob,shewouldhavetoresignfrombeingaMLAandthis wasreiteratedbytheConstitution.Teachersofgovernment schools/collegesarerecognisedaspublicservantsandareboundby thecodeofconductofstateemployees(ShikshakPratinidhi:1992).By contrastaidedschoolteachers,despitebeingpaidbythegovernment, arenotdeemedtoholdanofficeofprofitunderthegovernmentsince theyare,dejure,employeesofprivatemanagements.Asaresult,they cancontestelectionstotheLegislativeAssembly.Whenthishasbeen legallychallengedongroundsthatsuchteachersarepaidbythe government(likegovernmentschoolteachers),theSupremeCourtof Indiahasupheldthepositionthataidedschoolsteachersdonothold anofficeofprofitunderthegovernmentandcancontestelectionstothe LegislativeAssembly(Navjeevan:1988). Theofficeofprofitprovision Thisspecialprivilegehasinvitedsharpcriticism.AsSingh(Singh, SatyendraPal:1986)notes,Itisamazingtonotethatateacherspost hasnotbeenrecognisedasanofficeofprofit.Ateachercontinuesto remainateacherinhispostevenafterhavingwontheelection. Becauseofthisfacility,teachersinlargenumberhaveenteredinto politics.Ithascorrodedthevirtueandholinessoftheeducationsystem. Politicallyactiveteachersdrawfullsalariesfromtheirschoolsand collegesandtheydonothavetimetotaketheirclasses.TheUPHigh Court,theMadrasHighCourt,andeventheSupremeCourtofIndia, haveobservedthatteachersworkinginaidededucationalinstitutionsdo notholdanofficeofprofitundertheStateGovernment.Thereforethey cannotbehelddisqualifiedtocontestelectionsfortheLegislative CouncilandneednotresignfromtheirpostsifelectedasMLCsor MLAs.Takingadvantageofthisguaranteedjobsecurity,aidedschool teachersnotonlycontestelectionsforMLC,theyalsofreelycontest electionsforlocalbodies,suchasNagarPalika(municipalities),Nagar Nigam(towncorporations)alongwiththeelectionsfortheLegislative Assembly(lowerhouseofthestatelegislature)andtheParliamentof India.Consequently,teachersinaidedschoolshavebecomepolitically 4

moreactiveandunited.Furthermore,themainprimaryschoolteachers association(PrathmikShikshakSangh)inUPhasbeendemanding thatprimaryschoolteachersshouldbegiventhesameprivilegesas theircounterpartsenjoyinsecondaryschools.Teachersingovernment primaryschoolsinUPhavealsodemandedthatequalrightsbegivento them(asAidedschoolteachers)sothattheyarealsoabletocontest MLAelections(DainikJagaran:8.3.92). Justificationofteachersrepresentation ThemakersoftheConstitutionofIndiadebatedhardbeforethey decidedtomakeprovisionforteachersrepresentationintheLegislative Councils.Theywishedtheupperhousetocompriseofintellectualsand talentedscholarssothatsocietycouldbenefitfromtheirknowledgeand wisdom.AnexaminationofthepublisheddebatesofConstituent Assembly(CA)revealsthatthereweresomestronglydissentingvoices aboutallowingteacherstobeelectedasLegislativeCouncilmembers andfearexpressedaboutthepotentialpoliticisationofteachers.Dr Deshmukhvehementlyopposedtheproposal.Hedidnotconsider secondaryteacherstobeexperiencedandsoberelements,ortobeof atypewhoarenotlikelytotakepartinthedaytodaypoliticsandto fightelectionsandspendthemoneythatelectionsneed.Hesaid:We havegraduatesofuniversities.Onecanunderstandrepresentation beinggiventothem.Idonotseewhyasecondaryschoolteacheris luckyenoughalsoforthegrantofthisprivilege?Ithinkthisisvery unfairtotheprimaryschoolteachers.Secondly,whenweare consideringagraduateasaqualifiedpersontoelectpersonstothe secondchambersandalsoasecondaryschoolteacher,howwillitbe possibletokeepthesepeopleawayfrompolitics?Anothermemberof theCA,K.T.Shahremarked:Ifailtounderstandwhatprinciplethere couldbeinjustselectinggraduatesandteachersasagainstanyother sectionorprofessionsintheState.Theteachers,moreover,wouldbea partofthesocialservices...toselectafractionofitliketheteachers separatelyisagainanoverdoingorratherduplicatingthemachinery. WhenDrAmbedkar(chairmanoftheCA)rosetoreplytothese criticisms,hecouldnotfindanyconvincinglogictorevertthearguments raisedagainsthisproposedamendment.Hecouldonlysay:Idonot knowthatthosewhohaveindulgedinhighflownphraseologyin denouncingthisparticulararticlehavedoneanyserviceeitherto themselvesortotheHouse....Wehavetoprovidesomekindof 5

constitution(oftheLC)andIampreparedtosaythattheconstitution providedisasreasonableandaspracticableascanbethoughtofinthe presentcircumstances.(GoI:CADebates:p.490).Thus,theproposal ofDrB.R.Ambedkar,ChairmanoftheDraftingCommittee,was approvedandteachersrepresentationguaranteed. Whileteachersreservedrepresentationinstateparliamentswaslinked totheirsupposedhighthinking,eruditeandnobletraits,acontemporary analystobserves:Leadersofourcountryarefoundsayingfromthe daisthattheteacheristhenationbuilderbecauseheismouldingthe characterofthenewgenerationbyhisteachings.Infact,these statementsdonothaveanysubstance.Theyarebasedonslogans whichdonotcomprehendtheentiresocialprocess.Educationisonly partofthetotalvisionofasociety.Ateachercomesfromgroupsof workingpersonsinsocietywhoareengagedindifferentsectorsofthe economy,andisjustoneofthem.Nodifferentideal,psychology, attitudeoroutlookcanbeexpectedofhim.(translationfrom Raghuvansh:1995,p.29). TheresultsofthesepoliticalprivilegesareshowninTables1and2. Table1showsthatbetween1952and1998theproportionofUP LegislativeCouncilmemberswhowereteachersorexteachersvaried between13%and22%,asizeableenoughnumbertowieldreal influence.Informationontheoccupationsofcontestantsforthe LegislativeAssemblyelectionswasnotavailable.Table2suggeststhat therehasbeenagradualincreaseovertimeintheproportionof LegislativeAssemblymembersthatareteachers.

Table1:TeachersrepresentationintheUPLegislativeCouncil

Year 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Total seats 72 72 72 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 100 100 100

Teacher Exteacher members members 7 5 7 4 6 4 10 4 12 4 16 2 14 3 10 4 12 2 14 2 14 18 1 17 3 14 1 15 16 2 19 5 13 17 1 15 1 16 4 15 3 16 3 14 0 17 6 16 7 17 5

Total teachers 12 11 10 14 16 18 17 14 14 16 14 19 20 15 15 18 24 13 18 16 20 18 19 14 23 23 22

Teachersasa %oftotal 17 15 14 13 15 17 16 13 13 15 13 18 19 14 14 17 22 12 17 15 19 17 18 13 23 23 22

Source:GOUP:VidhanParishadkeSadasyonkaJeevanParichay,UPVidhan SabhaSachivalaya,2004,andpreviousissues. Note:From1960,theteacherLegislativeCouncilmembersweresittinginagroup namedtheRashtriyaDal(NationalistParty).Thisgroupwassoonrecognisedbythe ChairmanoftheCouncil(Chaudhari:1983p.73)butitdidnotexistforlongand teachersweredividedintopoliticalfactionswithinayear.

TeachershavealwaysbeenincludedintheCouncilofMinisterssince 1952,exceptforoneoccasionin1967underCBGuptaschief ministership(inwhichthecabinetlastedforonly15days).Moreover, severalChiefMinistersinUPhavebeenformerteachers.Forinstance, 7

Sampurnanand,SuchetaKripalani,TribhuvanNarayanSingh,Mulayam SinghYadav,KalyanSinghandMayawatiwereallformerteachers. ManyEducationMinistersinUPhavealsobeenformerteachers,for example,AcharyaJugulKishore,Kalicharan,SwaroopKumariBakshi, RajnathSinghandNarendraKumarSinghGauretc.Teacherministers havealsoheldmanyotherportfoliosapartfromEducation.

Table2:TeachermembersintheLegislativeAssembly

LegislativeAssembly (LA) First(1952) Second(1957) Third(1962) Fourth(1967) Fifth(1969) Sixth(1974) Seventh(1977) Eighth(1980) Ninth(1985) Tenth(1989) Eleventh(1991) Twelfth(1993) Thirteenth(19962002) Fourteenth(20022007)

TotalLA members 430 430 430 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 404

Teacher members N.A. 11 26 21 27 22 23 39 30 27 36 46 37 24

%ofLA membersthat wereteachers N.A. 2.6 6.0 4.9 6.4 5.2 5.4 9.2 7.1 6.4 8.5 10.8 8.7 6.0

Sources:Tablecomputedonthebasisofinformationin:(i)GOUP:UTTAR PRADESHVIDHANSABHAKESADASYONKAJEEVANPARICHAY,publishedby VidhanSabhaSecretariat.(variousissues)and(ii)NirvachanAyog(UP):Chunav ParinamVishleshan(variousissues).

Insummary,teachersprivilegedlegalpositionhasmeanttheir substantialpresenceinbothhousesoftheStatelegislatureaswellasin Statecabinets.Ithasfulfilledtheapprehensionsofsomeofthe membersoftheCAwhohadexpressedmisgivingsthatduetotheir specialconstitutionalstatus,teacherswouldbecomeembroiledin politics.Theeffectofthepresenceofteachersinthecorridorsofpower appearstohavebeentocreateacultureofpoliticalactivismamong teachers,especiallyamongsecondaryaidedschoolteachers.Thereis nowastrongbodyofteachersforwhomthemembershipofthe LegislativeCouncil,orservingtheirfellowteachersastheyputit,isthe ultimateaimoftheircareer.

Theevolutionofteachersassociations In1921,twoteacherorganisationswereformedinUP: (i) AdhyapakMandal(TeachersBoard)unionofprimary teachers (ii) UPSecondaryEducationAssociationunionof secondaryteachers In1956,theUPSecondaryEducationAssociationadoptedanew constitutionandcametobeknownastheUPMadhyamikShikshak Sangh(orMSS).TheMSSisthestrongestteachersunioninthe State.TheprimaryteachersassociationwasalsorenamedtheUP PrathmikShikshakSangh(orPSS)andrerecognisedbytheGOUPin the1950s.Themostimportantreasonfortheformationofateachers unioninthe1920swasthepoorconditionofteachersduringtheBritish period(K.L.Shrimali,ExViceChancellorofBanarasHinduUniversity). Teacherleadersclaimedthatitwasthissubjugationthatcompelled themtounitetoformunionsasearlyasinthe1920s(Chaudhari:1983). Boththeseorganisations,theMSSandthePSS,gatheredmomentum overtimeandmadetheirpresencefeltmoresignificantlyduringthe 1960swhenunionactionbecameintense,musteredwidepublicityand becameinfluential. TeachersassociationsattheuniversityandcollegelevelinUPemerged muchlater.TheFederationofUPUniversitiesandCollegeTeachers Association(FUPUCTA)formedin1966.Theyalsohavemuchless strength,publicityandpoliticalinfluenceascomparedwithunionsof schoolteachers.Inordertoincreasetheirstrengthandbargaining power,teacherleadersinuniversitieshavepressurisedmoreandmore lecturerstojoinpoliticsbyencouragingthem,first,tobecomeamember oftheirlocalunionandthengraduallytotakeamoreactivepartin politicalactivitiesandagitations.Forexample,atthetimeofinstituting anewunionatLucknowuniversity,teacherswishingtocontestforthe executiveofLUTA(LucknowUniversityTeachersAssociation) depositedafeeonbehalfofalargenumberofteachers,effectively coaxingthemallintojoiningtheunion.

Factionsinteachersunions TeachersunionsinUParenotunifiedbodiesofteachers.Theyare riddenwithinternalinfightingandgroupism.Differentgroupsare patronisedbydifferentpoliticalleadersandparties,resultinginpolitical interventionbecomingmorecommon.TheMSSisparticularlyridden withdifferencesandfactionalism.TheSharmaGroupisthelargest withintheMSS.Ithasdominatedteacherpoliticsforatleastthelast fourdecadesand,duringthattime,teachersrepresentativesintheUP LegislativeCouncilhavebeenelectedmainlyfromthisgroup. PlacedatnumbertwoinstrengthisthePandeyGroupwhichhasled manyteacheragitationsintheState.Butgraduallyithasalsolostmost ofitsmembershipanditnowhasabout500membersleftwithit.The ThakuraiGroupoccupiesthethirdplace.Itsstrengthhas,however, beendwindlingoverthelastfewyearsafterthedeathofitsleaderRN Thakuraiandnow(2008)ithasjust100200members.Thefourthis theBhattGroupbutitspresenceishardlyfeltanditsstrengthis waningfastandnowithasonly48membersleft.Manyteachershave alsoassumedmembershipofmorethanonegroup.Itis,therefore, difficulttoplaceallgroupsoftheMSSindescendingorderinaprecise manner.Weestimatetentativelythat80to90percentofthesecondary teachersinUPareunionised(Kingdonsurveyshowed84%in1991). TheteacherrepresentativesoftheMSSintheUPLegislativeCouncil claimthattheynotonlyrepresenttheinterestsofsecondaryteachers butalsosafeguardtheinterestsofallteachersoftheState. Factionalisminteacherunionshasdividedtheteachingcommunityinto politicalgroupsandideologybasedfactions,afactlamentedbythe ReportoftheNationalCommissiononTeachers,whichconsidersit detrimentaltotheprofessionaldevelopmentofteachers. Teacherunionstrikesandotheractivities TheMSShasspearheadedseveralstrikesandagitationsinsupportof teachersdemandsfromthegovernment.Thefollowingmethodsare frequentlyusedbyteacherstopresstheirdemands: Creatingmassawarenessthroughdiscussion,seminars, symposiaetc. Meetingsofteacherrepresentativeswiththegovernment 10

Masscasualleave,meetingsanddemonstrations Statementsonmassmedia Signaturecampaigns,observingblackdayandoppositionday etc. Sitins,demonstrations,andprocessions Collectivefastingandgherao(picketing) Opposingtheministersinelection Writingpostcardstogovernment BoycottofordisturbingthesessionsintheLegislature Examinationboycotts Pendown/chalkdownstrikes JailBharoAndolan(fillthejailscampaign).

Table3listssomeofthemoreimportantunioninspiredactivities. However,itisnotablethatotherthanthestrikesandactivitieslistedin Table3,thereweresubstantialteacheractionsinotheryearstoo. Someweretoopposecurbsonteacherunionactivitiesandtooppose movestointroducelocallevelaccountability.Forexamplein1979,the AllIndiaSecondaryTeachersFederationandtheUniversityTeachers AssociationhelddemonstrationinNewDelhion23Apriltoexpresstheir resentmentagainsttheEmployeesServiceConditionandDispute ReconciliationActwhichgavethegovernmentpowerstotakeaction againstteachersunions. UndertheleadershipoftheTeachersFederationofUP,thePSS,MSS andtheUTAsorganisedabigdemonstrationinLucknowon1May 1979.TheyraisedtheslogansagainsttheAct:SangathanonParRok LagiToKhoonBahegaSarkonPar(iftheorganisationsare opposed/banned,itwillleadtobloodshedonthestreets),demanding thattheActberevokedbythegovernment.

11

Table3:ImportantteacheractionsinUP(19562004)
Year 1956 1959 1964 1965 1966 1968 69 1971 1973 1974 1975 1977 78 1979 1981 From 31Jan. 3May 24Apr, 4Aug. 11Mar. 5Dec. 25Nov. 27Jan. 3Dec. 14Jan. 31Mar. 2Dec. 1May 27Jan. 17Aug. 21Oct. 7Nov. 16Nov. 24Nov. 27Nov. 1Dec. 12Jan. 30Aug. 5Sep. 5Nov. 7 Nov. 5Sept. 20Sept. 14Nov. 15Sept. To 31Jan. 8May Duration(days) 1 2 1 1 18 5 45 23 21 >2 >1 42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 Details Maindemand:revisionofpayscales 4,000teachersdemonstrated 10,000teachersdemonstrated11pointcharterincludeddemandsfortriplebenefitscheme 30,000teachersdemonstrateddemandsincludedinterimrelief,equalpaytoGandPAteachershungerstrikebysometeachersfrom2228Marchcentral govtannouncedfinancialhelpforUPTeachersGOUPincreasedsalariesofPAteachersbyRs.20permonth. 5,000teachersdemonstratedinviolationofprohibitoryorderdemandwaspayparitybetweenGandPAteachersteacherleaderswerejailedbutreleased th on17 December. Initially3000teachersdemonstrated(600arrested)strikeintensified20,000teacherssenttojailDemandsincludedpayparitybetweenPAnonteaching staffandGemployeesanddirectsalarytoPAteachersfromthestategovttreasury Totalstrikeobservedissueswerelackofimplementationofagreements1000teachersandtheirleadersarrested. 11pointcharterofdemandsincludednationalisationofeducation500teachersarrested. th Pandeygroupthreatenedtogoonstrikeon4 March,demonstrationinvitedlathicharge.Leaderbadlyinjured,remainedhospitalisedfor8days.This wasmadeanissueforprolongingthestrike. DemonstrationinfrontofLA,demandingpayincreasesandnationalisationofeducation.2000teachersarrested. OrganisedbyPandeygroupofMSSdemandsincludedthenationalisationofeducation,retentionofeducationofConcurrentList,andparityingratuity pensionsetc.betweenPAandGteachers40,000teacherstookmasscasualleave80,000striked30,000teacherswerearrested DemonstratedagainsttheEmployeesServiceConditionsandDisputeReconciliationAct,whichsoughttoregulatetheactivitiesofteacherunions PandeygroupsdharnaanddemonstrationtoaskforaEducationServiceCommissiontoregulateteacherappointments Pendownstrikeagainsttheremovaloftemporaryteachersfromservice Pendownstrikeindemandforpayrevision MasscasualleaveanddemonstrationbecauseofdissatisfactionwiththeUPPayCommissionsrecommendations SitinordharnaatRajBhavanindemandofpayrevision Fastuntildeath(AmaranAnshan)protestfastingteachersarrested PandeygroupandSharmagroupstageseparatedemonstrations StrikeinoppositiontotheUPPayCommissionsrecommendations Demandsincludednationalisationofeducation3000teacherssenttojailschoolsremainedclosedfor35days SharmagroupofMSSorganisedmasscasualleave SitinatDIOSoffice,postcardtochiefministercampaign 80,000teacherstookmasscasualleave 40,000teachersdemonstrated28demandsincludednationalisationofeducation,paymentofsalaryforthepreviousstrikeperiod,abolitionofprivate managementinschools,andregularisationofadhocteachersetc. Allthreegroupshadagitationsin1986.On5Sept.Scooterrallyagitationagainsttheappointmentofparttimeteachers Chalkdownstrike,againstNationalPolicyonEducation RallytodemandtheimplementationoftheFourthPayCommissionsrecommendations,schoolsremainedclosed Agitationson16 June(warningday),15 September(historicrallyofteacherswithgovtemployeessuppressedbyuseofteargasandlathicharge,one persondiedandmanyteacherswereinjuredmanyteacherswerearrestedcalledoffon7Oct),and13November(60,000teachersparticipatedinarally). GOUPannouncedgenerousimprovementsinDA.

28Mar. 10Dec. 5Jan. 18Feb. 23Dec. th 4 Mar. 31Mar. 13Jan. 1May 27Jan. 17Aug. 21Oct. 7Nov. 16Nov. 24Nov. 27Nov. 3Dec. 18Feb. 30Aug. 5Sep 5Nov. 7Nov. 5Sept. 20 Sept. 14Nov. 7Oct.

1984 1985

1986

1987*

12

Year 1988**

From 14Oct.

To 26Oct.

Duration (days) 13

Details GOUPfailedtoimplement1987agreementAwarenessweekobservedfrom25August.Bigrallyorganisedon15Septemberfastingbyrotationorganisedfrom25 Septto11OctShoutingslogans:JeeneLayekVetanDo(givewagesworthaliving).GOUPadmittedthatingivingnewscales,anewburdenofRs656crores wouldcomeonitsshoulders.Talksheld26Oct.andagreementreached. AllMSSfactionsinunifiedrallytodemandCentralpayscalesforUPteacherstomake450moreunaidedschoolsaidedfortheregularisationofadhocteachers. AgreementpushedupGOUPeducationexpendituresharply. Pandeygroupssitindharnainsupportoftheir15pointcharterofdemands SitinsatDirectorofEducationsoffices.AgitationprogrammesforNov/Dec.postponedinviewofBabriMasjidunrest PandeygroupdemonstratedatLAinsupportof51pointcharterofdemands,includingregularisationofadhocteachers,bringingmoreschoolsontotheaidedlist, andremoveofpayanomalies.ThakuraigroupagitatedinmonthofAugust DemonstrationatLAandgheraooftheDirectorofEducationofficesdemandingimplementationofvariousgovtorders. MSSunderwentafurthersplitthisyearanewgroup(theBhattgroup)formed.
th 10,000teachersinvolvedinasitinbytheSharmagroupofMSSon10 Jan.ManydaysteachingwastedinMarchduetomasscasualleave,demonstrationsand sitins.Unionsdeclared(butdidnotcarryout)aboycottofexaminations.

1989 1990 1991

19Aug. 9Aug. 29Aug. 5Jan. 27Nov.

19Aug. 9Aug. 30Aug. 5Jan. 27Nov. 10Jan. March 21July 7Sept 16Oct 6Dec. 24Aug 14Nov. 23Jan.

1 1 2 1 1 1 many days 1 2 1 11 1 1 7

1992

10Jan. March 21 July 5Sept 16Oct 25Nov. 24Aug. 14Nov. 17Jan.

1993

1994 1995 1996

Nostatewideagitationofteachersin1993butmostpreviousissuesweretakenupatlowlevelsofagitation.Thakuraigroupsatyagrahon21/7/93sitinon7 Sept th th andaprocessionsanddemonstrationson5 Sept(31demands)and16 Oct.Manyotherdemonstrationswerealsoheldduringtheyearbuttheydidnotmakea notableimpact. th Agitationstookplaceon56May(demonstration)25 Oct(picket)strike25Nov6Dec(strike)maindemandswere:unaidedprivateschoolsbebroughtonaidlist, regularisationofadhocteachers,removalofpayanomalies,nomodificationbeattemptedintheSalaryDisbursementAct SitinattheofficesoftheDistrictInspectorofSchoolsandattheLA,49pointcharterofdemands AllfourgroupsoftheMSScametogetherinhistoricunitytodemonstrate Jailbharoandolan(FilltheJailsagitation).TalkswiththegovernorendedtheagitationbutMSSfactionsaccusedeachotherforcallingofftheagitation.Sitin th (dharna)on6Junedemandingsalarypaymentinthefirstweekofthemonthdemonstrationson12 Dec.atthedistrictheadquartersofallteacherunionsinthe state,witha13pointcharterofdemandsfordistrictmagistratesoneparticulardemandwasthereleaseofthereportoftheFifthPayCommission. NoncooperationmovementbyMSSwhichcrippledtheeducationsystemintheStateofUP.ItwasthebeginningoftheagitationfortheimplementationofFifthPay Commissionrecommendations. th Indefinitefullstrikestartedfrom8 JulyallovertheStateinvolvingabout5lakhteachers.Governmenttriedtosuppresstheagitationbuttheleadershipdidnotbow down.Lathichargeonteachersrallyon30Julyandthestrikewassuspendedon6Augustinpeoplesinterest(Janhit) MammothrallyinLucknowofteacherMahasangh(allteacherunionsandemployeesunionscombined).Teacherleaderswerearrestedyetlakhsofteachersjoined therally,blockedtheroadsintheStatecapitalandofferedtheirarrest. BlackdaywasobservedbyclosingallschoolsintheStateandcondolencemeetingswereheldtomournthedeathofteacherleaderBhagwanBuxSingh(whowas murderedinLucknow) Ahugetorchrally(MashalJuloos)wastakenoutinLucknow.

th

1998

1July 8July

7July 6 August 22 August 9Sept.

7 29 1 1

1999

22 August 9 Septem ber 20 Sept. 23 Octobe r 1April

1 20Sept

2000

23 Octobe r 7April

MammothrallyofMahasanghinJyotibaPhuleNagarforimplementingtheFifthPayrecommendations

2004

UnderthebannerofEmployeesTeacherCoordinationCommittee,teacherswentonstrikeandmarchedonroadsforpressingtheirdemandofmergerof50percent ofDAinthebasicpay.Theagitationcontinuedforaweek.TheGovernmenthadtoaccepttheirdemandstobeimplementedlater.

Table3:(continued) Notes:*ledbySharmaGroup**ledbyPandeyandThakuraiGroupsPA=PrivateaidedschoolG=Governmentschool

13

In1992,theBJPGovernmentinUPledbyKalyanSingh(himselfa teacher)madeseveralannouncementsinthefieldofeducationwhich werelargelydislikedbytheteachingcommunity.Thegovernmentgave morepowerstomanagementcommitteesofprivateaidedschools,self financingschoolswereallowed,selffinancingcourseswerestarted,pay disbursementauthoritywasagaintransferredtoprivatemanagement, cheatinginexaminationswasdeclaredanoffenceandsecurityof serviceswerereducedbygivingthemanagementofPrivateAided schoolsmorepowers.However,whenallfactionsoftheMSSunitedto fighttheseantiteachermeasuresandannouncedacallforboycottof examinations,thegovernmentofUPdeclaredthatithadnointentionof changinglegislationregardingthetransferofsecondaryteachersfrom onedistricttoanother,orofbringinginrulestoallowauthoritiesto prolongindefinitelythesuspensionofanyteacher.Thesame governmentalsolegislatedthehistoricanticheatinglawwhereby studentscaughtcheatingcouldbejailed.Theintroductionoftheanti cheatinglawwasaccompaniedbythedeploymentofpoliceinall examinationcentresin1992.Theeffectofthismeasurewasto drasticallyreducethepassrateintheUPHighSchoolExamsfrom57% in1991tolessthan15%in1992!ThisisseeninTable4.
Table4:PassratesinexaminationsbytheUPHighSchoolExaminations Board Year Percentageofexamtakerswhopassed Regular candidates 49.6 47.6 46.4 61.2 17.3 Private Candidates 40.6 39.4 40.4 52.2 9.0

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Total 46.6 44.8 44.2 57.0 14.7

Source:SwatantraBharat(HighSchoolExamResultsSupplement)Wed15th July1992,p3.

Thefrequencyofactionbyteachersunionsisremarkable.However, thereisnoinformationonwhetherteacherswentonstrikemoreoften thanworkersinothergovernmentdepartments.Nevertheless,the ConstituentAssemblyhadaccordedteachersauniquelyprivileged 14

politicalpositionbecauseitbelieved/hopedthatteacherswereawiser andnoblergroupthanothers. Table3showedthattheissuesonwhichteachershavecampaigned havealmostinvariablybeentodowithteacherspayandjobsecurity andrarely,ifever,forbroaderimprovementsintheschoolingsystemor forthepromotionofeducationingeneral.Thisconclusionagreeswith theassessmentintheReportoftheNationalCommissiononTeachers, whichobservedin1986:Themainpreoccupationofteachers organisationsparticularlysinceindependencehasbeenwiththe improvementofsalaryandserviceconditionsofteachers.Andinthis theyhaveachievedconsiderablesuccess.(NCT:1986,p.73). Theothermainissueonwhichteacherunionshavelobbiedgovernment andachievedsuccessisindemandingcentralisedgovernment managementofaidedschoolssothatteacherscanbeprotectedfrom allegedunfairpracticesbytheirprivatemanagersandbeshelteredfrom havingtobelocallyaccountable.Arguablythebiggestsuccessesofthe teacherunionsinUPhavebeentheenactmentoftheSalary DistributionAct,1971andtheBasicEducationAct,1972Actswhich massivelycentralisedthemanagementofschooleducationinUP. Thepoliticsofeducationalfinance ThesystemoffinancingofsecondaryeducationinUPisbasedtoa largeextentonstatesupportintheformofgrantsinaidtoprivately managededucationalinstitutions.Attheprimaryeducationlevel,the mainresponsibilityforfundingismeanttoliewithlocalbodies.Grants toprivateaidedschoolsaccountforaverysubstantialproportionofthe educationbudgetinUPabout70%and80%ofthehigherand secondaryeducationbudgetsinUPrespectively(Table5)but,at present,theyarelargelydevoidofperformanceconditionsorincentives.

15

Table5:Shareofgrantinaid(GIA)expenditureinpubliceducationbudgets

State

WestBengal Uttar Pradesh Kerala Maharashtra Gujarat TamilNadu Assam Karnataka Haryana Orissa Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Bihar Himachal Pradsh

ShareofGIAin totalpublic education expenditure 1990/ 200001 91 51.1 81.7 n.a. n.a. 55.2 49.4 35.3 59.7 33.3 24.1 9.9 29.9 18.0 5.8 5.9 1.2 1.1 52.8 44.7 33.9 32.1 24.8 n.a. 10.0 9.1 7.9 5.7 3.2 1.6 1.3

ShareofGIAinPublicExpenditure ateachlevel(200001)

Higher Secondary 44.6 70.3 57.1 87.2 64.2 54.6 29.8 65.4 35.8 42.7 26.5 12.8 11.1 0.0 10.5 94.2 76.7 51.7 77.8 88.7 34.9 66.3 n.a. 7.8 7.7 20.0 7.8 3.7 3.6 1.1

Elementary 84.4 n.a 55.3 0.1 0.0 26.2 6.4 n.a. 2.0 1.3 7.3 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.4

Source:Bashir(2005)whocompileditfromDetailedDemandforGrantsfor Educationofindividualstategovernments.

Thepoliticsofgrantinaid OneoftheabidingdemandsofUPteacherunionshasbeenformore privateunaidedschoolstobebroughtontothegovernments`grantsin aidlist.Theyhaveachievedsomesuccess.Forexample,between 1984and1991,681juniorand298secondaryprivateunaidedschools weremadeaided.Duringthefinancialyear199596alone,200private, previouslyunaided,schoolswereincludedinthegrantsinaidlist. Bringingunaidedschoolsthoserunentirelyonfeerevenueontothe `aidedlisthasamajoradvantageforteachersinthatitplacesthemon governmentsalaryscales,whichareanythingbetween2.5to5times thepaytheyreceiveinunaidedprivateschools(Kingdon,2007). 16

However,italsohassomedrawbacks.First,itgreatlyincreasesthe financialburdenonthestatewithoutleadingtoanyincreaseinthe overallnumberofstudentsorteachers.Second,teachersofaschool thatismade`aidedfeelindebtedtotheirpoliticalpatrons(teacher politicians/unionleaders)andobligedtosupporttheirpoliticalactivities. Thiscanundermineacademicstandards.Third,aidedstatustypically leadstoalossoflocalaccountabilityasteachersarenowpaidbya facelessbureaucracyfaraway.Fourth,`aidedstatusisinimicalto equitybecauserelativelywelloffstudentswhopreviouslychoseafee payingschoolandwereableandwillingtopayfortheireducationare targetedforsubsidy.Givenscarcityofgovernmentresourcesandthe parlousstateofstatefundedprimaryeducation,thisseemsinequitable. Sinceitismainlymiddleandsecondaryschoolsthatreceivegrantin aid,manyprimaryagechildrenattendprivateprimaryschoolfirst,i.e. theyhavetopassafinancialhurdletoaccessthesubsidiesavailablein aidedmiddle/secondaryschools.Finally,bringingprivateunaided schoolsontotheaidedlistappearsinimicaltoefficiencyaswell:private unaidedschoolsaremoreeffectiveinhelpingtheirstudentstolearn thanaidedschools(Kingdon,1996a).Therapidincreaseindemandfor privateunaidedschoolinginUPsuggeststhatparentsperceiveittobe ofbetterquality.Thismaybepartlybecauseteachersinunaided schoolsareaccountabletoandcloselymonitoredbytheirschool managersandbyfeepayingparents.Theaboveconsiderations suggestthatwhileprivateunaidedschoolsconversiontoaidedstatusis advantageoustounaidedschoolteachersintermsofgreatlyincreased salaries,itpitsteachersinterestsagainstthemoregeneralinterestsof anefficientandequitabledistributionofscarcestateeducational resources.

17

Table6:EvidencefromIndianstudiesonprivateunaided(PUA)andgovernment schoolteachersaveragemonthlysalaries
School Level PUA payas a%of Kingdons Kansals study study 1994 1990 Govinda/ Varghese 1993 Jains study 1988 Bashir's Singh/ Murali study Sridhar dharan 1994 2002 & Kreme r Baroda Many 2 20 district, districts, districts, states Gujarat Tamil Uttar of Nadu Pradesh India 47 47 20 20

Primary Gpay /junior level PApay 43 Second Gpay 74 ary Level PApay 79

Lucknow district, Uttar Pradesh 42

Cityof New Delhi 39

5districts, Madhya Pradesh 49

39 76

66

50

76

Source:KingdonandMuzammil(2003) Note:TheKingdonstudysampled182teachers,Kansal233teachers,Govindaand Varghese111teachers,Bashir419teachers,andSinghandSridhar467teachers.The numberofteacherssampledbyJainisnotknown.PUAisprivateunaidedPAis privateaidedandGisGovernmentschools.

Teacherappointmentsandservicebenefits Teachersorganisedlobbyingforcentralisedgovernmentmanagement begantoyieldresultsintheearly1970swhentwofarreaching educationActswerepassed:theBasicEducationAct1972,which broughtalllocalbodyschoolsdirectlyunderStategovernmentcontrol andtheSalaryDisbursementAct1971,whichbroughttheteachersof allPrivateAidedschoolsdirectlyundertheStategovernmentsremit. ThemaineffectoftheseActswastogreatlyimproveteachersjob securityandtosubstantiallycentraliseeducationalmanagementbythe Stateandtherebydiminishthelocalaccountabilityofteachers.The enforcementoftheseActsseriouslyweakenedtheinfluenceoflocal bodiesandofprivatemanagementinbasiceducation. TheActsprovidedabasisforthemanyconcessionswonbyteachersin primaryandsecondaryschoolsinrelationtoappointments, emoluments,promotionandserviceconditions:achievementsinterms ofpoliticallobbying.Teachersweretransferredfromthesometimes exploitativecontrolofprivatemanagementandlocalbodiestothe

18

generoussupervisionoftheStateGovernment.Theeffectwasto centraliseselectionandrecruitmentproceduresandtoeradicatethe authorityofprivatemanagersandlocalbodiesindiscipliningerrant teachersbydismissalordemotion,thusgreatlyreducingteacherslocal answerability.

Table7:TeachersnominalandrealsalariesinUP(Rs.permonth)
YEAR Principal Headmaster Assistant Trained Intercollege HighSchool Teacher Graduate Intercollege Teacher HighSchool 250 275 500 550 850 2200 8000 12.9 250 153 260 220 272 355 519 4.0 225 247 400 450 770 2000 7500 13.6 225 137 208 180 246 323 486 4.6 175 215 365 400 650 1600 6500 13.5 175 119 190 160 208 258 422 4.5 120 138 300 300 450 1400 5500 14.1 120 77 156 120 144 226 357 5.1 CTGrade Teacher CPI 1960=100

Nominal Real Nominal Real Nominal Real Nominal Real Nominal Real

196061 196970 197172 197374 197576 198586 199596* Annual% increase 7396

75 100 220 250 450 1350 4500 14.0

75 56 115 100 144 217 292 5.0

100 180 192 250 313 620 1542

NOTE:Theabovenominalamountsofpayaretheminimumatthebasicpayscale exclusiveof`DearnessAllowance. *RerevisedpayscalesannouncedinDecember2001.

Teachersalaries Teacherunionssuccessinimprovingteacherspaycanbeassessed againsttwoyardsticks:first,whetherteachersmaderealgainsinsalary andsecond,whethertheyincreasedtheirshareoftotalstateeducation expenditure.Table7comparestherateofincreaseinthenominal salaryofUPteacherswiththerateofincreaseinprices,toseewhether realsalarieshavechangedmuchovertime.Table8showschangesin theshareofsalariesintotaleducationspendingovertime. Table7showstheminimumatthebasicpayforeachteachertypein nominaltermsanddeflatedbytheAllIndiaConsumerPriceIndex(CPI). Therewaslittlerealincreaseinteachersalariesuntiltheearly1970s, althoughtheywereperiodically`inflationproofedbywayofa`Dearness Allowance.However,between197374and199596,thebasicsalary ofCTgradeteachers(i.e.primaryschoolteacherswithaCertificateof Training)grewatarateof14%perannuminnominaltermsandat5% perannuminrealterms.Overthe22yearperiod19734to199596, 19

teacherssalariesincreasedatanannualpercentagerateof approximately4%to5%peryearinrealterms,animpressiveannual rateofgrowthoveralongperiodoftime,giventhattherateofgrowthof realpercapitaGDPoverthesameperiodwas3%perannum.This providesaroughindicatorofthesuccesswithwhichteachersandtheir unionshavelobbiedthegovernmentforpayincreases.Moreover,it seemsthatinIndia,teachersalariesarehigherrelativetonationalper capitaincomethaninmanyothercountries.Forexample,theratioof averageteachersalariestopercapitaincome(admittedlyanimperfect measureofteachersstandardoflivingvisavisothers)is2.4:1inLatin Americaand2.6:1inAsiabutamuchhigher3.6:1inIndia(Colclough andLewin1993,p52and143).Arecentestimateoftheratioforthe stateofUttarPradeshis8.5:1.
Table8:Wagecostsasaproportionoftotalpublicexpenditureoneducation

YEAR

Recurrentasa%of totalpublic expenditureon education 74.7 79.4 85.0 87.1 94.8 97.3

Salarycostsasapercentageof total recurrentexpenditureoneducation (%) Primary 87.9 90.7 92.3 96.6 96.7 NA Junior 85.1 89.2 90.4 94.3 93.8 NA Secondary 72.3 75.3 85.6 87.1 89.9 90.7

196061 196566 196970 197475 198182 198788

Source:(GOI,EducationinIndia ),variousyears. Note:Thefigurespublishedfortheyear198788andlaterforprimaryandjunior educationlevelsarenotcomparablewithfigurespublishedinpreviousyearsbecause from198788,nonteachingstaffsalarieshavebeenlumpedtogetherwiththeitem othergivingtheimplausiblylowfigures(for8788)of94.0%and91.6%forprimaryand junioreducationrespectively.Priorto196061,expenditureinformationinpublished documentsisnotpresentedbyitemofexpenditure(salaries,consumables,others,etc) butratherbyexpenditureonboysschoolsandexpenditureongirlsschool,etcor expenditurebysource.

Anincreaseintheshareoftotaleducationexpenditurethatgoeson salariesisanotherindicationofthesuccessofteachersinwinning financialvictories.Table8showsexpenditureonteachersalariesasa proportionoftotalrecurrentpublicexpenditureoneducation.It demonstratesasecularlongtermincreaseintheshareoftotal (recurrent)educationspentonsalaries.By1981,fully97%ofall 20

primaryeducationexpenditurewasgoingtoteachersalariesandonly 3%wasavailablefornonteacherexpenses.Thecorrespondingfigures forjuniorandsecondaryeducationwerenotmuchbetter:94%and 90%,sothatonly6%and10%oftotalrecurrentgovernment expenditureoneducationwasspentonnonsalaryschoolexpenses. ThegovernmentofIndiaitselfnotes(GOI,1985a,p25):morethan90% oftheexpenditureinsomestatesevenmorethan98%isspenton teacherssalariesandadministration.Practicallynothingisavailableto buyablackboardandchalks,letalonecharts,otherinexpensive teachingaidsorevenpitchersfordrinkingwater. SomenonUPmicrostudiesfindthatthesituationwasworsebythe early1990s.ForexampleTilakandBhattinTilak(1992)findthatsalary costsaccountfor96.2%(insecondary)and99.0%(inprimary)oftotal recurrentunitcostsinHaryana.Aggarwal(1991,p86)calculatesthat expenditureonsalariesaccountsfor93.5%oftotalexpenditureinG schools,94.0%inAidedschoolsand87.7%inPUAschoolsinhis sampleofsecondaryschoolsinNewDelhi.Whilethereissome improvementinthissituationunderthecurrentSarvaShikshaAbihyan (CampaignforEducationforAll)policy,whichprovideseachschoolwith aTeachingLearningMaterialsgrant,thesefiguresprovideanindication ofthesuccessofteachersorganisations. However,theyalsopointattentiontotheunfortunatefactthatnonsalary expenditure,whichhaseducationalmerit,hasbeenprogressively squeezedout.Researchsuggeststhatthesizeofteachersalarieshas nosignificantassociationwithstudentachievementbutthatotherforms ofeducationalexpendituredo.Forexample,in72developingcountry studies,thefactorsthatboostedstudentachievementmostwere: instructionalmaterials,lengthoftheweeklyinstructionalprogramme, schoollibraryactivityandteachertrainingattertiaryleveletc.(Fuller: 1986).Teachersalariesdidnotsignificantlyaffectstudentachievement inthemajorityofthestudies.Similarfindingswereobtainedinasurvey of147developedcountrystudies(Hanushek:2003).Forthestateof UP,Kingdon(1996)foundsimilarlytoFullerandHanusheknamely thatteachersalarieshadnosignificantimpactonstudentachievement aftercontrollingforstudentandhouseholdcharacteristics,butthat schoolresources,instructionaltime,andqualityofteacherseducation didsignificantlyimprovestudentlearning.

21

Conclusions Thepaperpresentsevidenceofsignificantpoliticalpenetrationby teachers.Thisisparticularlyprevalentinthecaseofteachersofaided secondaryschools,whichconstitutethemainbulkofallsecondary schools.Itwouldbenavetothinkthatthepoliticisationofthemain actorsintheeducationsectornamelyteachershasbeenwithout effectonschooleducationperformance.Thereiswidespreadconcern aboutthedeleteriouseffectsofteacherpoliticsontheprogressofthe educationsectorinUP.Teacherspoliticisationinthesenseoftheir activeparticipationinunionactivitiesandthefactthatsuchactivitiesare directedorsupportedbyprofessionalteacherpoliticianshasbeen linkedtothepoorperformanceofschooleducationinIndia.For example,theNationalCommissiononTeachersstatesthatthemost importantfactorresponsibleforvitiatingtheatmosphereinschools,we weretold,hasbeentheroleofteacherpoliticiansandteachers organisations(NCT:1986,p.68). Inviewofthenegativeaspectsofteacherspoliticalactivities,whichare frequentlybroughtintopublicfocusinthemedia,theyhaveoftenbeen advisedtomendtheirwaysandbecomeconstructive,throughsuch exhortationsasteachersassociationsshouldplayanimportantrolein increasingtheprofessionalhonestyanddignityofteachersandin restrainingprofessionalmisconduct.TheNationalFederationof Teacherscanprepareaprofessionalcodeofconductforteachers (Agnihotri:1987,p.282). TheevolutionofeducationalexpenditureinUPappearstohavebeen heavilyinfluencedbythedemandsofteachers.Therearemany indicationstosuggestthis,includingthepassageoftheSalary DisbursementAct(1971)andtheBasicEducationAct(1972).Thefact thattheseActs arguablythemostimportanteducationallegislations inUPwerepassedimmediatelyafterperiodsofintensestrikesby teachers,suggeststhateducationallegislationinUPhasbeena reactiontoprotestsratherthanbeingbasedonwellconceived principlesofefficiencyandequity.ThecontentoftheseActshashad theeffectofincreasingjobsecurityandsalariesofaidedandlocal governmentschoolteachers.Theyalsocentralisedtheadministration andmanagementofschools,greatlyreducingteacheraccountabilityto theirlocalmanagers.Thisabandonmentoflocalaccountabilityislikely 22

tohavehadanadverseeffectonthefunctioningofschools.Sincethe schoolmanagerorlocalbodycannolongersackashirkingteacher, andhasvirtuallynodiscretiontopenaliseerrantteachers,theremaybe agreaterincentivetoshirk. Thelaxattitudesofsomeoftheteacherstowardstheirschoolsand studentshaveresultednotonlyfromalossoflocalaccountability,but alsofromthestrengthandinfluenceoftheirunions.Unionbacked teachersdonotfearadverserepercussionsiftheyshirktheirduties. TheReportoftheNationalCommissiononTeachersnotesthatsome ofthePrincipalsdeposingbeforeit(i.e.beforetheCommission) lamentedthattheyhadnopowersoverteachersandwerenotina positiontoenforceorderanddiscipline.NordidtheDistrictInspectors ofSchoolsandotherofficialsexerciseanyauthorityoverthemasthe erringteacherswereoftensupportedbypowerfulteachers associations.Weweretoldthatthattherewasnoassessmentofa teachersacademicandotherworkandthatteacherswerevirtually unaccountabletoanybody(NCT,1986,p68). Teachersparticipationinpoliticsalsohasanadverseeffectonthe functioningofschools:itkeepsthemawayfromteachingbecausethey areengagedinunionorpoliticalactivities.Theevidencepresented hereanddiscussionswithknowledgeablepersonssuggestthat teachersaremobilisedbytheirleadersformeetings,lobbyingor protestsinoneformoranothereveryyear.Consequently,teaching suffers. Whilenoestimatesareavailableofthenumberorproportionof teachersthatcontestelections,theevidenceshowsahighdegreeof participationbyteachersinprotestactionandsuggeststhatagood numberofteachinghoursmustbelostinmostyears.Moreover,teacher membersofLegislativeAssemblies(MLAs)andLegislativeCouncils (MLCs)continuetooccupytheirteachingpostswhichareoftennotfilled byreplacementteachers,leadingtoafurtherlossofteachingactivity, althoughonlyasmallnumberofteachersareinvolved.Teacherunion leadersandteacherMLAsandMLCscontinuetodrawtheirteacher salaries(aswellastheirMLA/MLCsalary)fortheirfullterminpolitical office,althoughtheydonotteachduringthisperiod.

23

TheReportoftheNationalCommissiononTeachers(NCT:1986)a documentwrittenwithmuchsympathyfortheteachingprofession levelsthreecriticismsatteacherunions.Firstlythatthereistoomuch politicisationintheteachersorganisationssecondly,thattherearetoo manysuchorganisationsanditwouldbegoodiftheirnumberscouldbe reducedsubstantiallyandthirdly,thatteachersorganisationshavenot paidenoughattentiontotheintellectualandprofessionaldevelopment oftheirmembers. Itwouldbeimplausibletoattributethepoorfunctioningoftheschool systemonlytothepoliticisationofteachers.Thepaucityofresources andteachingmaterialsinadequateschoolbuildingsandthelackof basicfacilities,mustsurelycreateadisempoweringenvironmentfor teachersandstudents.However,evenasthesephysicalfacilitieshave improvedovertherecentyears,itisnotclearwhethereducational outcomesofstudentsespeciallylearningachievementlevelshave improved,orwhetherteacherefforthasimproved:arecentstudyput teacherabsencerateat25%inIndia(Kremeret.al.,2005). Whileteachershavelobbiedalmostsingularlyforincreasedsalary allocations,thereisnoparentsorchildrenslobbytodemandgreater allocationstoschoolnonsalaryexpenses.Itisnotsurprisingthenthat theNationalCommissiononTeachers(NCT,1986,p71)makesan impassionedappealtoredressthisimbalanceinpoliticalinfluence:we mustdrawattentiontotheneedtopromoteactivelyparents organisationsalloverthecountry.Atpresenttherearehardlyany organisationsinterestedinprovidinggoodeducationtotheirchildren. Wefeelthatsuchorganisationsaredesperatelyneededtopromoteand safeguardtheeducationalinterestsoftheirwardsandtocounteractthe negativeandunhealthypoliticalpreoccupationsofsometheteachers andtheirorganisations. Formingatradeunion,includingteachersunions,isalegitimateworker rightinanydemocraticsocietyandcampaigningforbettersalariesand serviceconditionsisoneoftheirmainpurposes.However,thispaper haspresentedevidencetoshowhowteacherspoliticalstrengthhas madeitdifficultforthegovernmenttodealimpartiallywithteacher demands,anditsconsequences.

24

Ithasnotbeenpossibletoprovidecomparisonsbetweenthebehaviour ofteachersandothergroupsofstatepaidemployees.Itispossible that,byplacingtheactivitiesoftheteachingcommunityinawider perspective,suchcomparisonswouldsuggestthatteachersbehaviour ispartofthewiderworkculturewithinthepublicsector.However,the speciallegalprivilegesofteachersplacethematapoliticaladvantagein comparisonwithotherpublicworkergroupsandthismayhaveresulted intheirhavinggreaterpoliticalinfluence.Whilesuchintergroup comparisonswerebeyondthescopeofthepresentstudy,theyshould beafruitfulareaofstudyinthefuture.

25

References Aggarwal,I.P.(1991)SchoolEducation,AryaBookDepot:NewDelhi. AgnihotriRavindra(1987):AdhunikBhartiyaShikshaSamasyeanaur Samadhan(ModernIndianEducationalProblemsandtheirSolutions), RajasthanHindiAcademy,Jaipur. Bashir,Sajitha(2005):GrantinAidMechanisminIndia:PolicyNote, WorldBank. CABE(1992)TeachersRepresentationintheLegislativeCouncils, ReportoftheCABECommittee,CentralAdvisoryBoardofEducation, NewDelhi. DirectorateofEducation,GOUP:ShikshakiPragati,AnnualProgress ReportofPrimaryEducationandSecondaryEducation,Directorateof Education,Allahabad Drze,J.andH.Gazdar(1997)UttarPradesh:TheBurdenofInertia, inDrze,J.andA.Seneds.(1997)IndianDevelopment:Selected RegionalPerspectives,ClarendonPress,Oxford. Fuller,Bruce(1986):RaisingschoolqualityinDevelopingCountries: WhatInvestmentsboostLearning,WorldBankDiscussionPaperNo.2, WorldBank,Washington. Gould,Harold,(1972):EducationalStructuresandPoliticalProcessin FaizabadDistrictUP,chapter7inRudolphandRudolph(1972). GovernmentofIndia1998:SixthAllIndiaEducationSurveyReport, NCERT,NewDelhi. GOI(1985):ConstituentAssembly(CA)Debates,Vol.IX,Official Report,LokSabhaSecretariat,GovernmentofIndia,NewDelhi (Reprint). GOI:SelectedEducationalStatistics,fordifferentYears,Departmentof Education,MHRD,GovernmentofIndia.

26

GOUP:AnnualStateBudgets,aspresentedbeforetheState LegislatureandVoteonaccountstatements.GovernmentofUttar Pradesh. GOUP:ShikshaVibhagkaKaryapurtiDigdarshak,PerformanceGuide oftheDepartmentofEducation,GovernmentofUP. GOUP:ArthikSameekshaandStatisticalDiary,DivisionofEconomics andStatistics,DepartmentofPlanning,GovernmentofUP. Hanushek,Eric(2003)TheFailureofInputBasedSchoolingPolicies, EconomicJournal,113Issue485PageF1F120. Kingdon,G.2007. TheProgressofSchoolEducationinIndia,Oxford ReviewofEconomicPolicy,23,No.2. Kingdon,Geeta1994.AnEconomicEvaluationofSchoolManagement TypesinUrbanIndia,DPhilThesis,,St.AntonysCollege,Oxford University. Kingdon,Geeta1996.Qualityandefficiencyofprivateandpublic schools:ACasestudyofurbanUttarPradesh,OxfordBulletinof EconomicsandStatistics,Vol.58,No1February Kingdon,GeetaandMuzammil,M(2003):PoliticalEconomyof EducationinIndia,TeacherpoliticsinUttarPradesh,OxfordUniversity Press. KothariCommission:EducationandNationalDevelopment,Reportof theEducationCommission(196466)NCERT,NewDelhi1970. Muzammil,M.2001:GrantsinaidforschooleducationinUttarPradesh, Project Report,sponsoredbyNIEPA,NewDelhi,August. Navjeevan:HindiDailypublishedfromLucknow.(issuesascitedinthe text,andthearticle:ChunavYachikaonkeSandarbhmeinUchchtam NyayalayakaNirnaya,15.1.88)

27

NCT,1986:TheTeacherandtheSocietyReportoftheNational CommissiononTeachersI,Controllerofpublications,Governmentof India,NewDelhi. PROBETeam1999:PublicReportonBasicEducation,NewDelhi, OxfordUniversityPress,seeBoxbyKingdonandMuzammilon PoliticalInfluenceofteachersinUttarPradesh. Raghuvansh(1995):AdhunikParisthitiaurHamLog(TheModern ConditionandUs),SahityaBhandar,Lucknow. Rudolph,L.I.andS.H.Rudolph(1972)EducationandPoliticsinIndia, Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. Santusht:MonthlyBulletinoftheMadhyamikShikshakSangh, Lucknow ShikshakPratinidhi(1992):EditorialinVolume7Nos.7274,March May Smarika2008ConferenceVolumebroughtoutontheoccasionof46th StateConventionofMSSheldinLucknow,February. Smarika2006ConferencevolumebroughtoutonGoldenJubilee CelebrationsoftheDistrictUnitofMadhyamikShikshakSangh,District Lucknow,October Weiner,Myron(1990)TheChildandtheStateinIndia:ChildLaborand EducationPolicyinComparativePerspective,PrincetonUniversity Press,Princeton.

28