Teacher Appraisal in Indian campuses

The first ever constituted University Education Commission (1948-49), created soon after the independence of India, realizes that the success of the educational process depends so much on the character and ability of the teacher. Similarly, the Education Commission (1964-66) indicated that, of all the different factors which influence the quality of education and its contribution to national development, the quality, competence and character of teachers are undoubtedly the most significant (NCERT 1966). According to every Commission and policy there is an urgent need fora proper status and improved working conditions of teachers in order to enable them to reach higher levels of performance and effectiveness (National Commission on Teachers 1983). However, the recommendations are always made by federally appointed commissions which hardly infiltrate the subsequent levels of governance.

Therefore, many times classroom teaching remains unchanged.

3.1 Teacher Appraisal and Accreditation agencies

The agencies responsible for the accreditation of the program and institution recognizestudents’ evaluation of teachers as one of the indicators for assessment. The National Policy on Education (NPE 1986) has recommended transforming the system of inspection and supervision (Government of India 1998)into an "Annual performance Appraisal" for the teachers. It has observed a comprehensive, open participatory database system of teacher evaluations which included self, peer, heads of institutions/departments, students and others.

In the intervening period, subsequent to NPE 1986, several initiatives have been taken to improve upon the existing system. Taking notes from the worldwide initiatives, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) of India has launched various enterprises to promote student participation in quality assurance. The NAAC is encouraging higher

education institutions to put in place a system of student feedback, particularly on teaching-learning, assessment, and support services (Prasad & Patil 2006). Similarly, the Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP) by the Government of India, aims to implement reforms derived from the National Policy of Education (NPE-1986 as revised in 1992) by institutions; it includes the practices of student evaluation of teacher performance.

The committees recommending student evaluation of teachers (SET) as an integral part of the appraisal system are the Prof. Amrik Singh Committee, Ashok Mitra Education Commission during early 1990s and ‘Perspective Plan’ by Higher Education Commission of West Bengal. However, these evaluations are the part of institutions or program portfolios ritually done before the accreditation or re-accreditation. In the midst of many documents and institutional data, teacher appraisal for classroom teaching is ignored.

3.2 Teacher Appraisal and Central Pay Commissions

During every promotion in the higher education academe of India, teachers enlist for research papers, consultancies, patents, research projects, participation in workshop/conferences and many others. This often leaves the question: did the policymakers keep a deaf ear towards the quality of classroom interactions? The review of policy documents, draft regulations and pay commission reports tella different story.

In 1971 the S.R. Sen Committee, while recommending the higher pay scales added the need for a code of conduct (Professional ethics) to be made a part of it. In 1987, the Mehrotra Committee too stressed the need for compulsory annual submission of 'performance appraisal' (an assessment of the performance of teachers which would encourage their accountability). It prepared two different formats of performance appraisal, one for the teachers of Arts and Science Colleges and another for teachers of Professional Colleges with the involvement of the All India Federation of College and University Teachers. Besides, the recommended, "Annual Submission of Performance Appraisal Reports by the Teachers"

it required the performance to be evaluated by students. Emphasizing the need for accountability in the teaching profession, the Rastogi Pay Committee(1996), for the Fifth Pay Commission suggested, "self-appraisal by teachers, assessment by students in an appropriate manner, periodic performance appraisal having regard to the number of teaching days, workload and code of professional ethics". The Sixth Pay Commission (2006) has been the pioneer jotting in clear lines the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) for appraising teachers, where the indicator is used in terms of Academic Performance Indicator (API).However, this Pay Commission has been no different from its predecessors regarding the implementation of student evaluation of teachers.

Teacher Appraisal at Universities in Hungary: Comparison of Indian Policies and the European Context

3.3 Performance Based Appraisal System

Before every promotion, the Sixth Pay Commission (2006) made it mandatory to fill up a self-evaluation form, known as Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), which has three distinct categories. While the first two categories deal with a kind of self-declaration about the extent and volume of the teaching activities, the third category takes an important and essential determinant for the performance appraisal of the teachers. Thus, the debate continues whether a good researcher is also a good teacher? Apart from PBAS, the report recommended the student evaluation of teachers. The PBAS samples teaching activities. It is self-evaluation and mainly a checklist of performed duties rather than evaluation of classroom teaching. However, this three layered PBAS has kept a major stake in the research activities of University/College teachers based on the teacher’s self-assessment, (refer Table 1).

Table 1 Academic Performance Indicators (APIs) in Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Category Domains of Assessment Activities for the Assessment

Category I Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Related Activities

Lectures, seminars, tutorials, practical, contact hoursundertaken taken as percentage of lectures allocated

Lectures or other teaching duties in excess of the UGCnorms

Preparation and imparting of knowledge / instruction asper curriculum; syllabus enrichment by

providingadditional resources for students

Use of participatory and innovative teaching-learning methodologies; updating of subject content, courseimprovement etc.

Examination duties (invigilation; question paper setting, evaluation/assessment of answer scripts) as per allotment.

Category II Co-curricular, Extension and Professional Development related Activities

Student related co-curricular, extension and field based activities (such as extension work through NSS/NCC and other channels, cultural activities, subject related events, advisement and counselling)

Contribution to corporate life and management of the department and institution through participation in academic and administrative committees and responsibilities.

Category Domains of Assessment Activities for the Assessment

Professional Development activities (participation in seminars, conferences, short term,

training courses, talks, lectures, membership of associations, dissemination and general articles) Category

III Research and Academic

Contributions IIIA Research Papers published

IIIB Research Publications(books, chapters in books, other than refereed journal articles) IIIC Research Projects

III D Research Guidance: M.Phil/Ph.D III E Training Courses and Conference

/Seminar/Workshop Papers Source: University Grants Commission, India (2010)

Moreover, the model table gives groups of activities and API scores meant to be implemented uniformly to all the public Universities in India. The universities may detail the activities or, in case institutional specificities require, adjust the weightages without changing the minimum total API scores required under this category. There may be several reasons for giving sole berth to the research activities of a teacher during the performance appraisal, however, it has been realized that teachers’ role for dissemination of knowledge cannot be ignored.

The reflections from the Seventh Pay Commission, set up by the University Grants Commission of India in 2015, have led to the boycott from Delhi University Teachers’ Union (DUTA) against the upcoming evaluation process (Jha 2016). DUTA is asking to withdraw the Academic Performance Indicators (API) system of evaluating teachers and to set up a pay review committee (Express News Agency 2016). The API is being widely criticized by various quarters of academe. The concern has been raised that the Seventh Pay Commission could not overcome the widespread criticism of the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) which has retained this irrational quantification of quality of teaching. Thus, the pertinent question is whether the “quality” is determined by “quantity”, thereafter, deciding the performance of teachers.

Somehow, there may be a lack of a well thought and scientifically devised mechanism which leads to confusion among teachers as well as education managers. As the teacher evaluation is not compulsorily implemented in Indian campuses, the concept has attracted fewer research. An investigation is reported by Watkins & Thomas (1991), which tests the applicability of two American Instruments designed to assess tertiary students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness, indicating that teaching effectiveness can be measured in an Indian setting. No matter what studies reflect about teacher effectiveness in classroom

Teacher Appraisal at Universities in Hungary: Comparison of Indian Policies and the European Context

teaching, it may be the quantification of research fetching the upward mobility in a career ladder of a teacher in higher education. The teaching may lose its meaning in the midst of a numbers game of research, and quality research will be lost among a teaching overload.