Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 6: Line 6:  
However, the ICT Infrastructure within the education department will not be available to cover large number of teachers. It is very important to build the ICT infrastructure in-house so that it is available whenever required by teachers. Depending on external ICT Labs will not allow this flexibility and will also be expensive. It is better to phase the program over 3-5 years, to include all teachers in the schools. This will support better quality. Hence the program would need to be conceptualized as a multi-year program, since it would not be feasible for all teachers to be enrolled in a year.
 
However, the ICT Infrastructure within the education department will not be available to cover large number of teachers. It is very important to build the ICT infrastructure in-house so that it is available whenever required by teachers. Depending on external ICT Labs will not allow this flexibility and will also be expensive. It is better to phase the program over 3-5 years, to include all teachers in the schools. This will support better quality. Hence the program would need to be conceptualized as a multi-year program, since it would not be feasible for all teachers to be enrolled in a year.
   −
Secondly it is important to focus at a time on a few subjects, rather than all. In larger states, it would be better to identify one subject at a time, and build PLCs for those subject teachers. Having a larger number of teachers of one subject being enrolled in the program will provide more traction to the interactions amongst the teachers, than working with smaller number of teachers of different subjects. Working on one subject at a time also puts lesser pressure on schools, as only the teacher(s) teaching that subject would need to pulled out of school.  
+
Secondly, it is important to begin with the highest classes in the school system and gradually include lower classes in a phased manner. In Karnataka, where the school system comprises lower primary schools (grades 1 through 5), higher primary schools (grades 1 through 7 or 8) and high schools (grades 8 through 10), the program began with the high schools. The reasons for this are simple - the high schools tend to be fewer and have better overall infrastructure, as well as larger absolute number of teachers. Comparatively, the lower primary schools on the other end tend to be many more in number, spread out in more remote areas, with fewer teachers and poorer overall infrastructure. The support required to maintain ICT infrastructure and scaffold teachers' learning to integrate ICT into their work, is of a higher order for the higher and even much more for  lower primary schools. Hence, after professional learning communities of high school teachers have been built, higher primary schools could be taken up. The PLCs of high school teachers could in their own geographies, support the PLCs of the higher primary school teachers. Likewise PLCs of higher primary school teachers could in their own geographies, support the lower primary school teachers. PLCs across these types of schools could be created, supporting the development of virtual school complexes over time, which could also link to the teacher support institutions in those geographies to develop the .
 +
 
 +
{{Collapsed|The Education Commission, 1964-66  observed that a school complex "would have several advantages in the helping to promote educational advances. Firstly, it would break the benumbing isolation under which each school functioned; it would enable a small group of schools working in a neighbourhood to make a cooperative effort to improve standards; and it would enable the state education department to devolve authority to functional levels.”
 +
The 1986 National Policy on Education, broadened this concept to 'educational complexes' which would include teacher education institutions and other school support institutions, apart from schools in the geography.}}Thirdly, it is important to focus at a time on a few subjects, rather than all. In larger states, it would be better to identify one subject at a time, and build PLCs for those subject teachers. Having a larger number of teachers of one subject being enrolled in the program will provide more traction to the interactions amongst the teachers, than working with smaller number of teachers of different subjects. Working on one subject at a time also puts lesser pressure on schools, as only the teacher(s) teaching that subject would need to pulled out of school.  
    
However, the vision should encompass every teacher in the school. There is no subject/area, where the teacher will not benefit by participating in virtual professional learning communities, for sharing experiences, resources and learnings. In every area, there is a need for supporting the development of learning materials that can address diverse and local needs, and digital tools could help in this. Every teacher should be seen as a co-owner of the school ICT lab.   
 
However, the vision should encompass every teacher in the school. There is no subject/area, where the teacher will not benefit by participating in virtual professional learning communities, for sharing experiences, resources and learnings. In every area, there is a need for supporting the development of learning materials that can address diverse and local needs, and digital tools could help in this. Every teacher should be seen as a co-owner of the school ICT lab.   

Navigation menu