“If I summarise the core beliefs and pedagogic practices that we saw in these classrooms, the

foremost would be the teachers’ belief that ‘every child can learn; the responsibility is ours.’ These
teachers plan to make the training experience interesting for every child and respect the prevailing
knowledge they carry to the classroom, using it to make new knowledge… These teachers help
children connect concepts with the earth around them…” (S Giridhar, 2019. p122) As I read through
S. Giridhar’s recent book Ordinary People. Extraordinary Teachers (S Giridhar 2019) one common
thread that ran through the lives of extraordinary teachers is their belief that each child has the
innate potential to find out . This belief made an enormous difference to the way they worked, the
pedagogy they used and most significantly their relationship with children. my very own research
over the last thirty years has convinced me that teacher belief is vital because it influences her/his
attitude towards children, the pedagogy she/he uses within the classroom and most significantly ,
her time-management to make sure that she is in a position to succeed in bent every single child.
within the same vein, teacher’s prejudices, biases and attitudes also can be a critical barrier to
learning. If teachers believe that some caste / class of youngsters don't have the innate ability to find
out , they're presumably to ignore the concerned children and focus only on those that they believe
can learn. If an educator believes that girls cannot learn mathematics, then he/she will communicate
that feeling and girls may feel afraid to ask questions or clear their doubts. At the outset, it's
important to differentiate between teacher belief and therefore the knowledge that teachers have.
There are two sorts of knowledge – ‘objective knowledge accepted by a community (e.g. official
material knowledge) and subjective knowledge. Belief represents individuals’ subjective knowledge
and is distinguished from objective knowledge…’ (Turner, Christensen and Meyer, 2014, p 361).
during a study on inclusion and exclusion that I led in 2011-12 for MHRD, GOI we found teachers and
faculty leaders who believed that children from very poor families – especially tribal and Dalit
children – didn't possess the innate ability to find out language, mathematics and science. As a
result, they didn't make any effort to succeed in bent children they believed couldn't learn
(Ramachandran and Naorem, 2012). within the same study, we also found teachers who genuinely
believed all children can learn which the house environment needn't always be a barrier to learning.
once we explored this further, we found that the subjective knowledge of such teachers was
supported their experience of effectively working with very poor and marginalised children and
enabling them to understand basic concepts. Equally significant was that these teachers tried to
create on the knowledge that children brought into the classroom. Teacher Belief in Children’s
Potential is vital Vimala Ramachandran for instance , there was one teacher who made columns on
the blackboard and wrote down an equivalent word as utilized in different languages – within the
main language of that area, within the dominant tribal language of that area, within the language of
the minority tribal group within the classroom and also in English. By acknowledging and discussing
how an equivalent object is mentioned in several languages represented in her classroom – she
immediately included each child within the learning process. In another school, I saw an educator
using bundles of leaves and sticks to show place value. Children of 1 of the poorest communities
therein village were wont to seeing their parents making bundles of leaves and counting them.
Children often assisted their parents in making bundles of fifty leaves or 100 leaves. Linking
mathematical concepts to reallife activities had a magical effect – the youngsters found learning to
be fun and identified with the activity. We also found some very interesting contradictions.
‘Discussions with teachers from six sample states also highlighted a standard perception: children
from very deprived social 12 Azim Premji University Learning Curve, April 2020 groups don't perform
well in class . Interestingly, information from an equivalent schools also revealed that this is often a
misconception which many children from deprived social groups were actually performing well
academically. there's a disjuncture between teacher’ perceptions and reality, and it's noteworthy
that teachers themselves acknowledged the youngsters who were ‘bright’ and keen on studies
(many of them Dalit/Adivasi), and at an equivalent time, they continued to carry on to prejudices
and stereotypes…” (Ramachandran and Naorem, 2015 pp 25-26) once we pointed this bent the
teachers, they talked about exceptions, attributing the ‘success’ to the extraordinary abilities of the
individual child, albeit he/she came from a group or family type they considered incapable of
learning. Students say that tutors specialise in ensuring every lesson is learnt or committed to
memory. Lessons and linked questions and answers are systematically memorised – so as to enable
the scholar to require examinations. Passive observations or participation isn't encouraged by tutors,
while within the classroom, teachers tend to ignore children who are seen as not ‘up to the mark’,
thereby encouraging passive observation or sitting within the back benches and ignoring what's
happening within the classroom. While rote has become a norm in both classrooms and tuition
centres, teacher belief on the potential of youngsters is that the key to know the teaching-learning
processes in schools and tuition centres. because it was found within the 2015 study (Ramachandran
and Naorem 2015) by the author, the expectations of teachers from some students or caste/gender
or class stereotypes that teachers bring into the classroom make an enormous difference. These
stereotypes are like self-fulfilling prophecies – neglecting those that are perceived as incapable of
learning – that push such students into a passive and disconnected space inside the classroom.
When children are marginalised inside the classroom, they cut . As children move from one grade to
subsequent , the prevalent regime of no-detention (as interpreted by the teachers as no
assessment), adds to the cumulative burden of not-learning. Focus-group discussions with children
who dropped out after enrolling in school IX revealed that they might not deal with the tutorial
requirement and thus had little option but to drop out. Failure and inability to deal with the studies
emerged as a crucial reason for youngsters throwing in the towel – the oldsters of youngsters who
dropped out said, ‘There was a shortage of teachers, no studies happening within the school -
therefore the children dropped out (Padhai chhoot gayi).’ In another group, the oldsters said, ‘We
wanted our youngsters to continue after grade 8, but they decided to go away because they “did not
learn anything much up to grade 8 and thus they didn't want to study” - they found studies difficult.’
Interestingly, not curious about studies clothed to be how of informing the research team that the
youngsters weren't learning. (Ramachandran and Nagpal. 2019). None of the above insights and
knowledge is new – the education community has known right along that teacher belief is probably
the foremost difficult issue to deal with . Administrators, teacher educators and academic
researchers are at a loss on how Global evidence shows that ‘some strong beliefs about teaching and
learning hindered teachers’ adoption of constructivist, or learning-focused, pedagogy. First, many
teachers tend to believe both learners and content as fixed, rather than interactive and malleable.
These teachers appear to believe that both development and individual differences, like intelligence,
limit their ability to point out the curriculum, so it must be adapted, by style or pace to “fit”
students. A corresponding belief is that teachers may assume that if something is taught (i.e.,
explained for demonstrated), it should be learned (Nuthall 2004). If students don't learn, the matter
is attributed to the inadequacy of the students’ (stable) motivation, ability or persistence, but to not
the instruction (Floden 1996). Such beliefs are in stark contrast to beliefs that guide an interactive
approach…’ (Turner, Christensen and Meyer, 2014, p 362; Nuthall 2004 and Floden 1996 quoted by
Christensen and Meyer). the matter centres around teacher beliefs that teachers got to focus more
on classroom management, instead of ensuring that each child learns. This belief is reinforced when
the govt directs teachers to finish the curriculum – expecting teachers to stick to schedules that are
set by the respective state governments / boards of education. Discussions with teachers reveal that
they're constrained by the time-table of completing specific sections of the curriculum monthly . This
becomes evident when students are asked why they take tuitions. Azim Premji University Learning
Curve, April 2020 13 to handle this issue. Despite this understanding, in-service teacher training has
primarily focused on specific subject knowledge or conceptual understanding – mentioned as hard
spots. there's almost no systematic effort to deal with existing beliefs and prejudices. This has been a
neglected domain – albeit case studies of outstanding schools or teachers repeatedly means that
motivated and highly engaged teachers make a difference. Even once they have poor
subjectknowledge, they're known to succeed in bent other teachers or other support systems (like
teacher forums or subject forums) and seek help. Periodic assessments – whether it's done by the
govt (NCERT) or private/non-government agencies (ASER, EI) – have told us that there's indeed an
enormous learning crisis across the country, in government also as private schools. Yet, the pressure
is on doing more assessments and (more recently) randomised control trial (RCT) studies. What India
must do is take a lesson out of the Polish or Finnish example and switch the spotlight on teacher
beliefs, teacher confidence, teacher autonomy and therefore the knowledge and skills of teachers.
While the draft NEP 2019 acknowledges the training crisis, there's little or no there on how this crisis
are often addressed. the difficulty of learning and quality of education is closely intertwined with
social and economic inequality. it's now universally accepted that the social capital that children
bring into the varsity is a crucial predictor of success – meaning that children who have educated
parents, have access to books and other reading , greater exposure to the creative arts, media and
sleep in resource-rich environments – seem to realize tons more from the tutorial process as
compared to those that come from resource-poor environments. Conversely, children from socially
and economically disadvantaged communities, who face different sorts of discrimination inside the
varsity from their teachers and fellow students, leave school with poor self-esteem and confidence
and really little ‘learning’. Girls carry a further disadvantage as they move higher within the academic
ladder – they are doing not get the topic of their choice and in many nations (especially in some
North and Western states) girls’ secondary schools don't offer science, mathematics or commerce.
Similarly, children in tribal areas and from the foremost disadvantaged tribal communities, not only
experience discrimination but have far poorer access to colleges beyond the elementary level.
Bringing teacher beliefs centre stage can help us create a dialogue on why it's important for each
single teacher to genuinely believe that each child has the potential to find out. Maybe this is often
an excessive amount of to invite the days when social polarisation is increasing and our political and
social leaders are busy promoting more prejudices instead of convincing folks that education, if
imparted equally and during a manner that each one children get an opportunity to find out , are
often the sole way our country can move forward. Maybe it's an honest time to start out with
teachers, their attitudes, beliefs and their knowledge. References Giridhar, S. 2019. Ordinary People,
Extraordinary Teachers: The Heroes of Real India. Westland Publications. Chennai. Ramachandran,
Vimala and Nagendra Nagpal. 2019. Status of education in Rajasthan – insights from a qualitative
study in Chittorgarh District, Draft Report, ERU Consultants Private Ltd. New Delhi. Ramachandran,
Vimala and Taramani Naorem. 2012. Inclusion and exclusion of scholars within the school and in
classrooms in primary and upper primary schools: A qualitative study commissioned by SSA, MHRD,
GOI. Technical Support Group, EdCIL, New Delhi. Turner, Julianne C, Andrea Christensen and Debra K
Meyer. 2014. Teacher’s Beliefs about Student Learning and Motivation, in L J Saha and A G Dworkin
(eds.), International Handbook on Research on Teachers and Teaching (pp361-371). Springer. UK.
Vimala Ramachandran has been performing on education , girls’ education, women’s empowerment
and therefore the intersection between health, nutrition and education of youngsters and childcare
practices. She established Educational Resource Unit (now referred to as ERU Consultants Private
Limited) in 1998 to make a network of researchers and practitioners performing on education. From
2011 to mid-2015 she was a National Fellow and Professor of Teacher Management and
Development in National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA). Currently,
she may be a Director in ERU Consultants Pvt Ltd. (www.eruindia.org). She could also be contacted
at vimalar.ramachandran@gmail.com 14 Azim Premji University Learning Curve, April 2020
Changing the narrative - the way forward No transformational social change has been achieved
without building a positive narrative and countering the negative perceptions round the core idea.
At the extent of primary education (and at certain levels up to the elementary level) the general
public education system has become an area that serves the youngsters of voiceless, or choice-less
communities. The shift of the elite and bourgeoisie from government systems to non-public schools
may be a shift from both the varsity also as from the system itself. This has led to adverse criticism of
the govt education system with complete ignorance of the implications of such criticism on the
oldsters whose children are in government schools, the larger teacher community also because the
Government itself. Such a defection, from the general public to non-public schooling, gives rise to
pessimism and widens gaps in society. When a toddler crosses the edge of faculty , she not only
brings her bag, slate and chalk, books and notebooks, but also her complete social and cultural
background: her full or empty stomach, her curiosities, her fears, hesitations, maternal language and
other facets. And if this child comes from a family that has not previously had a relationship with the
structure of education, then the varsity and therefore the teachers are required to be even more
flexible. If the stress made by the teacher or the varsity are strict and if they're unwilling to bend
consistent with the requirements of the kid , it leads only to at least one result – failure. And this
result's viewed by society because the child’s failure. for youngsters like Gundilal, Chintabai and Kalli,
who are already disadvantaged, to achieve success in class would require the creation of
opportunities which respectfully include their culture, experience and skills . Whatever happens
within the school would need to pass the test of the requirements and background of those children.
there's an extended list of individuals involved during this task of Education for All – from ministers
to officers, educationists and teachers. People from voluntary organisations have also now joined
this list. But the foremost important role is that of the teacher. Ensuring thoughts, resources,
autonomy and respect for teachers is primarily the responsibility of the govt education structure.
This includes policymakers, administrators and training institutes. We should ask this question
before raising questions on teachers and therefore the state of education in current times: is that
the understanding, resources and respect available to the teachers appropriate and adequate for a
task like Education for All? consistent with me, the type of preparation that an educator must add
the context of Education for All isn't being provided by either the govt or society, though it's unclear
whether the rationale is that the lack of will or the dearth of resources. If the task at hand is
challenging and new and therefore the preparation to realize it's incomplete, then how can one
expect large scale positive outcomes? If we consider education for all as a fundamental step towards
an inclusive society; then how can the concerns emerging from it's limited to our concerns of quality
education in terms of language, mathematics and traditional teaching of other subjects and
assessment? we'd like to redefine the expectations society has from

education and also check out curriculum and teacher preparation during a new perspective. there's
an urgent need for developing a shared understanding that on the one hand places Education for
beat the collective conscience at the centre of the creation of a far better society, motivates people
that are working towards this social project and, on the opposite , provides respect, support and
welcomes the teachers - the torchbearers of this project.

The notion of education for all and ensuring all learn to read and write and have access to all or any
sources and choices of education may be a recent one. it's a neighborhood of the movement to
evolve a society that respects all citizenry and treats them with a way of equality. This movement is
a smaller amount than a century old and doesn't cover an outsized a part of the planet yet. it's not
even a widely accepted principle in places where it's mandated, in spite of the policy and therefore
the international agreements and pronouncements. Maintaining social hierarchies The tenuous idea
of providing aspirational opportunities to all or any members of the society was an enormous
departure from the historically transmitted iniquitous treatment and lack of opportunities for the
massive majority of individuals . the thought of education for youngsters may are a neighborhood of
the many earlier societies in some form or the opposite but in most of those , education provided to
all or any children wasn't an equivalent and it had been not compulsory. In many places, there have
been different sorts of schools for youngsters from different backgrounds and even their curricular
expectations and methods were different. The principle of those schools and therefore the broad
principle that guided schools was largely towards maintaining social relations and social order. The
statement attributed to Tsar Nicholas I within the 18th century sums it up best: ‘It is important that
in every school the themes of instruction and therefore the very methods of teaching should be in
accordance with the longer term destination of the pupils, that no-one could aim to rise above that
position during which it's his lot to stay .’ this concept of education is extremely different from one
that might leave and expect social mobility seeking to stay the continuity of the social hierarchies
and situations the underlying philosophy within the statement of maintaining iniquitous social order.
this is often in stark contrast to a number of the recent philosophical positions. for instance , the
more recently articulated human capability theory, of which Amartya Sen may be a main proponent,
argues that education is that the thanks to build the capabilities, also as aspirations, of youngsters in
order that they will prefer to become a neighborhood of society during a role they need and within
the choosing that's conscious of all the chances that exist and feels empowered to be any of that.
This expectation from education is far quite what the international agreements and therefore the
right to education provide for. Yet, even the proper to free and compulsory education has
accompany tons of struggle and therefore the commitment to its implementation leaves tons of
gaps. for instance , it doesn't clearly specify the aims and purposes of education within the same
manner because the human capability framework does. So, the purpose is that while all societies
want children to be educated in how , the philosophical principles, the aims and thus , the intent and
therefore the mechanisms visualised are often very different. So, we'd like to believe why all
societies want all children to be educated and what's the education appropriate for them. the need
is obvious that each one human children would be taught by the society which they might have the
power to find out and this is often a part of human development and socialisation. The need for
education to be quite what the family could provide access to because the available human
knowledge increased, led to the emergence of some as teachers and for a few organised form and
structures for them to show children. As a result, schools of various sorts came up in several
societies and communities. These teachers and these organised forums were very different from the
character of the present-day schools. They were neither funded by the State, nor travel by it, nor
available to all or any and were largely not for commonweal . it had been largely for the great of the
elite and maintenance of the state. The education processes at that point were speech and
comprised the essence of the principles , regulations, norms and rituals that the communities were
supported . The scriptures being taught also contained the event of a perspective on and a view of
life and being. This was, however, embedded within the ways of behaviour and rituals that were
taught. aside from this, there was knowledge about nature, rules of logic, science, trades and crafts
also because the then available medical knowledge that was taught. The forms and structures of
imparting these were varied then was the content, albeit many essential principles may are an
equivalent . There was no compulsion, however, that required all children to be formally educated
during this or the other knowledge. we will also say that as societies developed the character of
faculties , how they were run and what was taught in them also changed. And as we move
comparatively closer to today, that is, within the period round the 15th Century, education began to
be led by the institutions that were connected to some sort of spiritual and non secular moorings
(ashram schools, madarsas, convents, monasteries are all samples of that). of these spiritually
inclined structures weren't a part of organised bodies and in many societies, were travel by
individual teachers. What was expected to be learnt and what was taught and assessed also varied
from society to society and indeed from institution to institution. The question of inclusion of all
children within the process of education arose thanks to the necessity to supply parents the chance
to travel to figure in places that had fixed hours of labor and where it had been important for the
worker to follow a particular discipline of your time and manner of labor . Besides this, some skills
were also needed, for instance , it had been also required that a toddler must be ready to follow
instructions. So, just like the training of the soldiers and therefore the upper elite girls to be society
women, now there was a reason to possess children from other backgrounds to be within the
school. Education expanded to incorporate a wider set, though whether all children could learn was
hotly debated also . the strain between the few who believed that each one children might be
taught in how or the opposite , and therefore the many that believed they might not, continued. this
is often evident from the story of Socrates teaching the slave boy and similarly, the film about an
English teacher teaching a woman from a special background to be and performance as a woman
(My Fair Lady) indicates the struggle that has been within the consciousness of the society about
inclusion. within the end, the advocacy of these who believed in equality of humans and therefore
the refore the overwhelming evidence against inherent comparable incapability led to a change
within the policy articulation and the framework supported the premise that each one children don't
got to be educated and actually , an outsized majority of them aren't even capable of learning. As
acknowledged above, girls were a serious component of the excluded children as they were in most
cases overlooked intentionally not just from educational processes, but also from senior positions
and as research leaders. The few women who were educated were educated within the limited
framework of education for the women and not through a universal programme for all children. The
inclusion of all girls during a universal school programme and expecting them to try to to
mathematics, science, engineering, etc remains not widely acceptable, even to people that have the
task of teaching them and making their education possible. The inclusion of all children within the
education process, therefore, has got to recognise the role of the state and therefore the folk during
this effort. Education also features a cost: the prices of the varsity , the prices for the family to send
the kid to the varsity and price and skill to support the kid in her/his learning after school. With the
low income available to several families it's impossible for them to seek out the cash for meeting the
prices of sending and supporting children learning after school. As I even have said within the
beginning, the dominant understanding about the approach to teach most are to be useful members
of the society and help form a stable society. it's an implication that every child must get education
as per the role that's decided for her or him. Emergence of the new elite The democratisation of
society, industrialisation and therefore the churning from opportunities had led to education
becoming necessary and hence, possible for a bigger number of individuals . there have been (are
now many) more children in schools than before. The increased complexity of society and skills
required for production and management demanded (and demands now) a way larger number of
such persons and with varied skills. And even among those that worked with hands, there have been
many that required specific education and skills that were crucial to the economy. There was some
mobility after the change within the means of production and therefore the nature of the market
that led to more mixing and emergence of a replacement elite. This elite also wanted to share
leadership also as economic gains. The growing economy and technology and this struggle brought
in ‘meritocracy’ because the major criteria for access, selection and mode of exclusion. This had to
interact with the co-existing notions of democracy and welfare. The resulting undercurrent of
tension between the strands of education to be exclusive and education for a bigger number and
diverse set of youngsters has continued in various ways. because the concept of democracy and
welfare role of the state grew after the experiences of the sooner half the 20th Century, so did the
necessity for each child to be formally educated and therefore the concern about the aim and nature
of this education. The Indian Constitution reflected the struggle between the upkeep of status-quo
in social hierarchies and therefore the inclusion of beat a standard programme of development. The
preamble articulated a commitment that was difficult to realize and also was hard to simply accept
and have faith certain the administrators. The 1986 education policy brought the strain to a head
and put into focus the important intent and prevailing policy and public belief by defining education
as human resource development. the selection of words was clear: citizenry were ‘resources’, they
were meant for the event of the state (read economy and therefore the market), just like the funds
for development. Each individual is an isolated individual and therefore the refore the goal of the
economy and the market is to maximise consumption with none concern for equitability of
distribution. The principle is to specialise in individual must build possibilities for max individual
pleasure, possessions and consumption of materials. The individuals haven't any social
responsibility, because the acceptedprinciple is that those that are without even basic necessities
are therein situation due to their lack of educational investment (in terms of their own effort and in
terms of their parents’ commitment, effort and contribution for his or her education). Thus, this
inspired by the Human Capital Theory (HCT) implies that in such an economy, the tutorial objectives
and activities need to be increasingly determined by marketing research and such technical
considerations that help the market grow instead of the other ethical or moral principles. the
elemental challenge to including all children in formal good quality education programmes today is
therefore the shortage of religion within the philosophical moorings that demand it. The promise
within the Preamble of the Constitution is neither understood nor accepted. it's clear that the
inclusion that desires equality of opportunity can't be achieved without ensuring that the exposure,
facilities, choices and options for development, at somewhat comparable level, are available to all or
any children. the method requires the assumption that each one children can learn and wish equal
attention and care. The expectation within the human capability theory from education is that it
might give each child the notice , possibility and capability of selecting her/his pathway and being
what she/he wants to be. In contrast, the prevailing principles on which education system is made ,
develops the kid growing up as a neighborhood of the human capital wealth and be an income
generator within the economy to maximise market exchanges. This formulation considers all
expense on education as economic investment and seeks a return on investment in terms of growth
of the economic production. because the possibility of expansion of numbers of jobs and upward
mobility has declined, education for more people is increasingly being threatened. Education has
increasingly become a narrower and narrower sieve to filter tons of youngsters . That has become its
operative purpose and its purpose and its availability adjusted accordingly. Good quality education
has thus become more exclusive and more and more specialised, with expensive opportunities being
created for the elite. While the conceptual documents and stated objectives could also be on the
brink of the spirit of the Preamble and a few nuanced reminder the potential theory, the truth is that
even the rights framework has become restricted to education that's minimalist and aligned largely
to the human capital theories. “If I summarise the core beliefs and pedagogic practices that we saw
in these classrooms, the foremost would be the teachers’ belief that ‘every child can learn; the
responsibility is ours.’ These teachers attempt to make the training experience interesting for each
child and respect the prevailing knowledge they carry to the classroom, using it to create new
knowledge… These teachers help children connect concepts with the planet around them…” (S
Giridhar, 2019. p122) As I read through S. Giridhar’s recent book Ordinary People. Extraordinary
Teachers (S Giridhar 2019) one common thread that ran through the lives of extraordinary teachers
is their belief that each child has the innate potential to find out . This belief made an enormous
difference to the way they worked, the pedagogy they used and most significantly their relationship
with children. my very own research over the last thirty years has convinced me that teacher belief is
vital because it influences her/his attitude towards children, the pedagogy she/he uses within the
classroom and most significantly , her time-management to make sure that she is in a position to
succeed in bent every single child. In the same vein, teacher’s prejudices, biases and attitudes can
also be a critical barrier to learning. If teachers believe that some caste / class of children do not
have the innate ability to learn, they are most likely to ignore the concerned children and focus only
on those who they believe can learn. If a teacher believes that girls cannot learn mathematics, then
he/she will communicate that feeling and girls may feel afraid to ask questions or clear their doubts.
At the outset, it is important to differentiate between teacher belief and the knowledge that
teachers have. There are two kinds of knowledge – ‘objective knowledge accepted by a community
(e.g. official subject matter knowledge) and subjective knowledge. Belief represents individuals’
subjective knowledge and is distinguished from objective knowledge…’ (Turner, Christensen and
Meyer, 2014, p 361). In a study on inclusion and exclusion that I led in 2011-12 for MHRD, GOI
wefound teachers and school leaders who believed that children from very poor families – especially
tribal and Dalit children – did not possess the innate ability to learn language, mathematics and
science. As a result, they did not make any effort to reach out to children they believed could not
learn (Ramachandran and Naorem, 2012). In the same study, we also came across teachers who
genuinely believed all children can learn and that the home environment need not always be a
barrier to learning. When we explored this further, we found that the subjective knowledge of such
teachers was based on their experience of effectively working with very poor and marginalised
children and enabling them to grasp basic concepts. Equally significant was that these teachers tried
to build on the knowledge that children brought into the classroom. We also came across some very
interesting contradictions. ‘Discussions with teachers from six sample states also highlighted a
common perception: children from very deprived socialgroups do not perform well in school.
Interestingly, information from the same schools also revealed that this is a misconception and that
many children from deprived social groups were actually performing well academically. There is a
disjuncture between teacher’ perceptions and reality, and it is noteworthy that teachers themselves
pointed out the children who were ‘bright’ and keen on studies (many of them Dalit/Adivasi), and at
the same time, they continued to hold on to prejudices and stereotypes…” (Ramachandran and
Naorem, 2015 pp 25-26) When we pointed this out to the teachers, they talked about exceptions,
attributing the ‘success’ to the extraordinary abilities of the individual child, even though he/she
came from a social group or family type they considered incapable of learningThe problem centres
around teacher beliefs that teachers need to focus more on classroom management, rather than
ensuring that every child learns. This belief is reinforced when the government directs teachers to
complete the curriculum – expecting teachers to adhere to schedules that are set by the respective
state governments / boards of education. Discussions with teachers reveal that they are constrained
by the time-table of completing specific sections of the curriculum each month. This becomes
evident when students are asked why they take tuitions. Students say that tutors focus on ensuring
every lesson is learnt or committed to memory. Lessons and linked questions and answers are
systematically memorised – in order to enable the student to take examinations. Passive
observations or participation is not encouraged by tutors, while in the classroom, teachers tend to
ignore children who are seen as not ‘up to the mark’, thereby encouraging passive observation or
sitting in the back benches and ignoring what is happening in the classroom. While rote learning has
become a norm in both classrooms and tuition centres, teacher belief on the potential of children is
the key to understand the teaching-learning processes in schools and tuition centres. As it was found
in the 2015 study (Ramachandran and Naorem 2015) by the author, the expectations of teachers
from some students or caste/gender or social class stereotypes that teachers bring into the
classroom make a huge difference. These stereotypes are like self-fulfilling prophecies – neglecting
those who are perceived as incapable of learning – that push such students into a passive and
disconnected space inside the classroom. When children are marginalised inside the classroom, they
switch off. As children move from one grade to the next, the prevalent regime of no-detention (as
interpreted by the teachers as no assessment), adds to the cumulative burden of not-learning.
Focus-group discussions with children who dropped out after enrolling in class IX revealed that they
could not cope with the academic requirement and therefore had little option but to drop out.
Failure and inability to cope with the studies emerged as an important reason for children dropping
out – the parents of children who dropped out said, ‘There was a shortage of teachers, no studies
happening in the school - so the children dropped out (Padhai chhoot gayi).’ In another group, the
parents said, ‘We wanted our children to continue after grade 8, but they decided to leave because
they “did not learn anything much up to grade 8 and therefore they did not want to study” - they
found studies difficult.’ Interestingly, not interested in studies turned out to be a way of informing
the research team that the children were not learning. (Ramachandran and Nagpal. 2019). None of
the above insights and information is new – the education community has known all along that
teacher belief is perhaps the most difficult issue to address. Administrators, teacher educators and
educational researchers are at a loss on howto handle this issue. Despite this understanding, in-
service teacher training has primarily focused on specific subject knowledge or conceptual
understanding – referred to as hard spots. There is almost no systematic effort to address existing
beliefs and prejudices. This has been a neglected domain – even though case studies of exceptional
schools or teachers repeatedly point out that motivated and highly engaged teachers make a
difference. Even when they have poor subjectknowledge, they are known to reach out to other
teachers or other support systems (like teacher forums or subject forums) and seek help. Periodic
assessments – whether it is done by the government (NCERT) or private/non-government agencies
(ASER, EI) – have told us that there is indeed a huge learning crisis across the country, in government
as well as private schools. Yet, the pressure is on doing more assessments and (more recently)
randomised control trial (RCT) studies. What India needs to do is take a lesson out of the Polish or
Finnish example and turn the spotlight on teacher beliefs, teacher confidence, teacher autonomy
and the knowledge and skills of teachers. While the draft NEP 2019 acknowledges the learning crisis,
there is very little there on how this crisis can be addressed. The issue of learning and quality of
education is closely intertwined with social and economic inequality. It is now universally accepted
that the social capital that children bring into the school is an important predictor of success –
meaning that children who have educated parents, have access to books and other reading material,
greaterexposure to the creative arts, media and live in resource-rich environments – seem to gain a
lot more from the educational process as compared to those who come from resource-poor
environments. Conversely, children from socially and economically disadvantaged communities, who
face different forms of discrimination inside the school from their teachers and fellow students,
leave school with poor self-esteem and confidence and very little ‘learning’. Girls carry an additional
disadvantage as they move higher in the academic ladder – they do not get the subject of their
choice and in many states (especially in some North and Western states) girls’ secondary schools do
not offer science, mathematics or commerce. Similarly, children in tribal areas and from the most
disadvantaged tribal communities, not only experience discrimination but have far poorer access to
schools beyond the elementary level. Bringing teacher beliefs centre stage can help us create a
dialogue on why it is important for every single teacher to genuinely believe that every child has the
potential to learn. Maybe this is too much to ask in the times when social polarisation is increasing
and our political and social leaders are busy promoting more prejudices rather than convincing
people that education, if imparted equally and in a manner that all children get a chance to learn,
can be the only way our country can move forward. Maybe it is a good time to start with teachers,
their attitudes, beliefs and their knowledge.