The department of education took an unprecedented initiative at overhauling the school education system in an endeavour to provide quality education in government run schools. It is under this policy of government that rationalisation of teachers as per the teacher-pupil ratio was undertaken across the state.
The exercise could have got rid of a menace in the system wherein teachers had rooted themselves to their preferred posting. If only the exercise would have gone as per the script, unfortunately the babudom of this haunted kingdom played spoilsport as it often does. No sooner did the government issue an order of rationalisation, most teachers who were not used to migrating from their habitats, got themselves either readjusted to another school as per their preference or were powerful enough to get the order put in abeyance. This is how those who have developed tentacles in the bureaucracy make a mockery of all those endeavours aimed at overhauling the system. They proved it again that rules are made for fools because only those teachers obeyed the order in letter and spirit who were neither related to anybody in higher rung nor knew how to grease the palm of those who can get any order annulled. Nobody can question the honesty and integrity of the esteemed people who wanted to turn a new leaf in the history of school education in the state, but those who have time and again been neutralising every initiative dispatched it once more. Five years down the line when our think-tanks would review what went wrong, despite their fool proof strategy, they would regretfully have nothing to write home about. It is time we set our priorities right if we all claim the quality of education has to take precedence over any other issue. What happens on ground is quite often dichotomous to what is presented at the policymaking.
Why do we retreat and trample over ideals when it comes to acting against those teachers who time and again violate the rules of school education? The rationalisation could have been the best service to society at large had it not turned into an “irrationalisation” thanks to those hands who always find ways and means to temper with any idea of transformation. Now what is left of this “rationalisation” with the subsequent favourable readjustments? Those schools, which had enough staff to spare, have some more teachers to dispense with and few students to avail their “miss-adjustments”. There are so many Radcliffs working in the department who draw lines randomly to make a joke of this teacher pupil ratio. Under this rationalisation all senior and newly appointed teachers where supposed to work in schools where maximum utilisation of teachers could be ensured. It is a different thing though that the recently appointed teachers, who had not drawn their salaries and were already suffering the bane of red-tapism in verifying their credentials, came under the hammer of this rationalisation policy.
At the same time one must acknowledge some noteworthy proposals in the pipeline under the new transfer policy in favour of female inter-district teachers who are working far away from their parent districts. But if the government is sympathetic towards them, why leave out male teachers appointed under the same inter-district recruitment? Their families too suffer because of their distant posting. Having said that the education minister has been generous enough in inviting opinions from civil society on this transfer policy. One hopes all views from well wishers of our society are taken into cognisance.