To what extent can PTR help in assessing teacher shortage
In Short
Nevertheless, both arguments converge when India has large schools (in terms of enrolment) that meet both pedagogical and PTR requirements in terms of human resources.
Share :
To what extent can PTR help in assessing teacher shortage
A widely perceived teacher shortage issue in the Indian school education system has recently been challenged in contemporary educational policy debates. Some scholars and policy analysts have argued that the problem lies not in the number of teachers available but in their inefficient deployment across schools. While some schools have teacher vacancies, others simultaneously have surpluses. Therefore, it is argued that vacancies should not be seen as a shortage but rather as a problem of redistribution and redeployment. A closer re-examination of the argument, however, reveals that it is partially convincing, although it highlights inefficiencies in educational planning and administration regarding their core functional human resources.
The pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) is the principal basis for addressing the teacher shortage problem. India’s school education progressed remarkably over the last two-and-a-half decades, with substantial improvements in the number of schools, availability of functional human resources (teachers), and the associated PTR. While the global normative prescription for PTR is 40, policy initiatives since SSA and RTE 2009 have set it at 30. However, the average PTR in Indian school education at the national and state levels is below 30, as evidenced by UDISE+ data and reports. India has numerous small and tiny schools, which, while contributing less to enrolment, significantly contribute to the number of teachers. PTR in such schools is even lower than the norm. Such schools evidently have a disproportionately higher number of teachers than the PTR norm prescribes. This statistical evidence supports the arguments presented in the above perspective, which contends that there is a genuine shortage of teachers in the Indian school education system. Hence, it is suggested that, rather than large-scale recruitment, the better strategy is redeployment and transfer policies.
There is considerable merit in this argument, given that the educational system suffers from administrative inefficiencies that result in an unequal distribution of teachers across schools. Very often, because teachers prefer urban schools or those in desirable locations, these schools attract more teachers than are needed. Simultaneously, schools in remote, rural, tribal and disadvantaged regions experience persistent vacancies. Such a scenario is indicative evidence of deployment inefficiencies in teacher allocation. Increasing the number of teachers to fill vacancies without correcting unequal distribution through redeployment would overburden the system financially and otherwise.
This notwithstanding, assessing the adequacy of teachers and their availability for the education system solely based on the aggregate average PTR is questionable. Although PTR provides information that enhances our understanding of the relationship between teachers and students in the education system, it reveals very little about staffing requirements in individual schools across educational levels. National averages mask the conditions under which education is delivered in schools.
A school, despite meeting the required PTR, could not implement its curricular activities effectively due to insufficient teachers to perform the required functions. Therefore, school-level adequacy differs from system-level adequacy.
A primary school with five grades, irrespective of enrolment size, requires at least five teachers to deliver the curriculum and related functions. If it holds only sixty students, the PTR-based norm, however, assigns only two teachers. In practice, the two teachers, while managing five classes, must perform other functions: prepare lessons, assess students, maintain records, interact with parents, supervise school activities, and fulfil other administrative responsibilities. Such multi-grade teaching, while managing other functions, constrains the quality of classroom instruction. The RTE Act 2009, although it prescribes minimum standards in elementary education, itself compromises pedagogical requirements in favour of efficiency and fiscal feasibility.
Schools must have an adequate number of teachers to conduct curricular activities in a pedagogically meaningful manner. Therefore, compliance with statutory norms may not automatically translate into, or be interpreted as, adequate pedagogy. Minimalist standards often understate the actual demand for teachers, based on the pedagogical principle of one teacher per grade in primary and per subject in middle and secondary. Middle and secondary schools require teachers specialising in subjects such as maths, science, social studies, languages, computers, arts, and vocational subjects. They are neither interchangeable nor substitutable. PTR-based assessment would mask such pedagogical requirements and disciplinary distribution of teachers. The purpose of staffing norms regarding school teachers’ requirements is to establish an institutional norm for fulfilling the educational, particularly pedagogical, functions of delivering the curriculum. Institutional functionality is more significant than numerical adequacy in determining teachers’ requirements. Such a requirement arises from the structure of education: one per grade in primary, one per subject in middle and secondary. Any shortage should be assessed in this perspective.
Further, educational planning for adequate teacher numbers often overlooks teacher attrition and reserve capacity and is based solely on requirements at a particular moment rather than on a concurrent, dynamic process. Attrition through retirement, resignation, promotion, transfer, illness, long leave, and any other form of absence require staff in reserve capacity to meet the regular functioning of institutions. A system without an attrition arrangement is more vulnerable to disruption at times. Moreover, India, with enormous diversity, has geographical and social disparities that complicate the issue of teacher requirements and shortages.
The discussion highlights two contrasting views of educational planning for core functional human resources, i.e., teachers. The PTR-based efficiency view emphasises teachers as a resource to be allocated based on school enrolment. An alternative view is that schools are institutions that perform multiple functions, including curricular, co-curricular, administrative, and community-related ones, and that their staffing requirements should be based on the pedagogical and other functions to be performed. It must be assessed at the institutional level. Moreover, it is pertinent for schools to provide meaningful learning opportunities and to support the holistic development of children. Although efficiency is a concern, society cannot forego equity. Hence, efficiency cannot be the sole criterion for determining teacher requirements.
The argument concerning the myth of teacher shortage rightly captures the reality of inefficiencies in the distribution and deployment of teachers, but it becomes less persuasive when examined from the standpoint of school functioning, pedagogically meaningful curriculum delivery, holistic development of the child, institutional requirements, and human resource planning. It compromises equity by justifying single-teacher, small, and tiny primary schools with far fewer teachers than are required to deliver a pedagogically meaningful curriculum. It also overlooks schools’ co-curricular responsibilities, extra-curricular activities, and reserve pool for attrition requirements.
Nevertheless, both arguments converge when India has large schools (in terms of enrolment) that meet both pedagogical and PTR requirements in terms of human resources. When roads, communication, and transport facilities were grossly inadequate, neighbourhood- and walkable-distance-based school locations were arranged in a pyramidal structure according to children’s age and age-appropriate level of education. Such a structure persists: dropout rates at higher levels were far higher than at lower levels, and accordingly, the number of institutions decreased at higher levels. The Kothari Commission advocated that school complexes share resources, including teachers, to meet curricular and pedagogical requirements across schools in a cluster. As India is reshaping itself over time with better road connectivity, communication, and transport infrastructure, education policy and planning can envisage school complexes each covering all levels of school education or up to lower secondary, co-located, covering a cluster of villages, and arranging transportation for students from all neighbouring villages in the cluster. India reaching a near-universal attendance rate across the school-age population requires a cylindrical structure with roughly equal numbers of schools froma primary to secondary, and roughly the same enrolment size at each class or level. The time is ripe to redefine the school complex from a cluster of schools into a large school encompassing all levels, co-located in one place, serving a cluster of villages. Such a policy change may achieve both efficiency and equity, leaving no child behind in access and quality.
(The writer is Associate Professor and Coordinator, Research Cell on Education (RESPPG) Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad)
