Central panel seeks answers on over 800 teacher vacancies
Panaji:
The Union education ministry's project approval board (PAB), while carrying out an annual review of the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan implementation in Goa, has pointed to over 800 teacher vacancies waiting to be filled at all levels in the state, besides 83% vacancies within the State Council for Education Research and Training (SCERT).'At the state-sanctioned level, 306 positions at the elementary level, 311 at the secondary level, and 231 at the senior secondary level remain vacant. The state was urged to take necessary steps to fill all vacant positions across levels by Dec 31, 2025,' the PAB noted.It also said that a significant proportion of positions in SCERTs and DIETs (district teacher education institute) are currently filled on deputation or contractual basis — 83.3% posts in SCERT (10 of 12 posts) and 92% in DIETs (23 of 25 posts).'Considering the pivotal role of these institutions in teacher empowerment and educational reforms, it was advised that all such positions should be filled on a regular basis, on priority, by June 30, 2025, to ensure greater institutional accountability and a stronger sense of professional responsibility,' the PAB said.It has also said that the progress of the teacher training institute's upgrade into a Centre's centre of excellence is unusually slow in the state.'Under the DIETs of Excellence scheme approved in PAB 2021-24, DIET, North Goa was sanctioned in the first phase. However, slow progress was observed in the state. The state was urged to closely monitor the implementation and ensure timely completion of activities sanctioned under the scheme,' PAB said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Maharashtra: SCERT issues revised timetable to introduce third language in primary schools
Mumbai: A day after the Maharashtra government issued a revised government resolution (GR) making a third language compulsory in state-run schools, the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) on Thursday released a new daily academic timetable. The revised schedule adjusts teaching hours across subjects to accommodate the third language from Class 1 onwards. As per the circular, the changes are aimed at aligning the total annual instructional hours with the National Curriculum Framework's (NCF's) requirement of 990 academic hours. However, to allot teaching hours for the third language, the SCERT has reduced teaching time for subjects like art education, physical training, and work experience, now renamed as 'work education'. As per the NCF, the third language is also supposed to be taught only from Class 5. The revised timetable has drawn criticism from educationists and school principals, who said that the changes could compromise students' overall learning experience, especially in areas meant to foster creativity and physical development. According to the revised plan, the number of teaching hours for core subjects like the first and second languages and mathematics remains largely in line with NCF recommendations, which are in accordance with the National Education Policy 2020. However, art education, which the NCF suggests should be taught for 144 hours annually, has now been allotted just 81.67 hours under the new SCERT schedule. The SCERT has also, for the first time, provided a sample timetable to help schools plan their academic day. While the sample timetable itself is not mandatory, the subject-wise allocation of teaching hours must be followed. Unlike the NCF's recommendation of 45- to 50-minute periods, the Maharashtra government has opted for shorter 35-minute sessions. However, two consecutive periods may be combined to provide extended time for certain subjects. The SCERT circular clarified that the revised daily schedule, as per the GR dated June 17, will apply to state board schools of all language mediums for class 1 this academic year and then class 2 from next year. Mahendra Ganpule, former spokesperson of the State Principals Association, questioned the logic behind introducing a third language from Class 1. 'Without any clear rationale, the government has introduced a third language from the very beginning of schooling. And now, they've issued a timetable that cuts into the time meant for other important subjects. The NCF doesn't even mandate instructional hours for the third language at the foundational level. Then why is the government insisting on pushing it?' he said. The state's June 17 GR had earlier drawn flak for making Hindi the default third language unless at least 20 students in a class opt for an alternative. Education experts and opposition leaders said it was in effect a backdoor entry of the state's earlier proposal to make Hindi a compulsory language in state board schools.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
SCERT releases revised timetable structure for Class 1 to accomodate third language
The State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) on Thursday released a revised timetable structure for Class 1 to accommodate a third language. This came a day after the Maharashtra government issued a revised Government Resolution (GR) stating that Hindi will be taught as the third language in Marathi and English medium schools across the state for Classes 1 to 5. With the new timetable, the stipulated minutes to be spent on each subject have been reduced, creating a major gap from what is recommended under National Curriculum Framework (NCF). The document released by SCERT, adds a third language to Classes 1 and 2 formally, as until now, the only official document in this regard, which is State Curriculum Framework-Foundation Stage (FS), recommended only two languages for these classes, as per NCF. 'The changes will be applicable to Class 1 from academic year 2025-26. Whereas for Class 2, these changes will be applied after the introduction of the new syllabus and curriculum as per the SCF,' states the document released by SCERT Director Rahul Rekhawar. Even as the NCF-recommended timetable structure suggests 50 to 60 minutes spent on each subject, the state's revised timetable structure reduced it to 35 minutes. 'This was bound to happen as the NCF-FS includes only seven subjects, whereas the state has added one more subject by introducing a third language from Class 1. To accommodate the additional subject, time spent on all other subjects has been reduced,' said Mahendra Ganpule, former head of the Maharashtra School Principals Association. The note released by SCERT also provides a sample timetable. It states 'Schools can design their own timetable, based on their timings. But they will have to stick to the stipulated time mandate per subject.' According to schools, this announcement has come very late as schools have already started and structuring the timetable is finalised way before that. 'Now that we are almost a week into the new academic year, a new timetable guideline has been issued. Schools have already started with the timetable structure issued in the past in the SCF-FS, which does not include a third language for Class 1,' said a senior teacher. Schools have also complained that the government has included a new subject into the timetable structure for Class 1, without clarity on teachers to teach the third language, alternatives to Hindi, and curriculum guidelines.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Indian Express
Right to education is non-negotiable. It shouldn't depend on Centre-state relations
Written by Mayuri Gupta In a quiet yet telling move, last month Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court against the Centre for freezing educational funds. The Centre informed the Rajya Sabha during the 2025 Budget session that it allocated no funds to Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal under the Centre's share for the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan for 2024–25. These states are not underperformers; rather, they have been long recognised for their robust education systems. Notably, this freeze isn't a clerical error or a mere budgetary oversight. It reflects a worrying trend of politicised fiscal federalism, one that not only threatens the constitutional promise of equality and cooperative governance but also strikes at the heart of the fundamental right to education. At the heart of this federal standoff is the Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) that play a pivotal (and sometimes outsized) role in governance. They are conditional grants under the Constitution that are unilaterally designed and partially funded by the Centre and implemented by the state governments. The disbursal of the Centre's share under the CSS depends on certain conditions and is tied to a set of procedural and compliance-related requirements. For instance, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan is an umbrella scheme for school education under the Ministry of Education. It integrates three CSS: Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) and Teacher Education (TE) aimed at equitable quality school education across India — from pre-school to senior secondary level — while also supporting teacher-training and system strengthening. The fund-sharing ratio between the Centre and the states (other than NE states) is 60:40. In the absence of transparency and uniform enforcement, CSS risks becoming a tool of fiscal coercion in the hands of the Centre rather than an instrument to further cooperative governance. This undermines the spirit of federalism. This is because, CSS funding framework is not governed by a dedicated statute, but by executive guidelines under Article 282 of the Constitution. Article 282 enables the Union as well as the states to make discretionary grants, even beyond their respective legislative competences, for any 'public purpose'. Although Article 282 was never intended to be a regular route for fiscal transfers from the Union to the states, over the years, several 'one-size-fits-all' discretionary schemes have allowed the Centre's control over matters beyond its legislative competence. This hampers the autonomy of states and, at times, leads to inefficient overlaps. For instance, the Centre has linked the release of funds for Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan to the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools scheme by the states, which TN, West Bengal and Kerala are opposing. This has halted admissions for the academic year 2025-26 under the Right to Education Act in Tamil Nadu, illustrating how CSS, with their strict conditions and lack of flexibility, can hamper state capacity. When CSS are used as a political tool rather than a policy instrument, the foundational ideals of cooperative federalism begin to erode, with the poorest, and in this case, the children, paying the price. Right to education is guaranteed in Article 21A of the Constitution, which makes free and compulsory education a fundamental right for all children between 6 to 14 years of age. However, the realisation of the right to education depends on cooperative federalism as education comes under the Concurrent list. Yet, the top-down approach towards education through CSS can risk transforming a fundamental right into a bargaining chip, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. As there is no clear constitutional or statutory framework governing the design and implementation of CSS, the ongoing standoff between TN and the Centre presents an important opportunity for the Supreme Court to examine whether certain rights-based entitlements (such as the fundamental right to education) should be protected from coercive tactics by one tier of government against another. When the implementation of the Right to Education is routed through other schemes, it risks making access to fundamental rights contingent upon political alignments between the governments. This weakens both the principle of cooperative federalism and the fundamental right to education. The current stand-off raises a deeper constitutional question: Can access to fundamental rights be made conditional on political conformity in a federal democracy? The Constitution does not permit a framework where executive discretion or ideological conformity dictates the enforcement of rights that are meant to be universal and inalienable. The current case offers the SC a rare opportunity to answer the above question by revisiting its interpretation of Article 282 and drawing clear constitutional limits on the use of CSS, to restore balance in Centre-State relations and ensure that fundamental rights remain non-negotiable. The writer is Milon K Banerji, Senior Resident Fellow at Charkha, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
