• BELIF MODEL PAPER 17
  • ... read more
  • MISSION BELIF PART 13
  • ... read more
  • MISSION CLERK PART 18
  • ... read more
  • BALVIAKS ANE SIXAN NA SIDHANTO PART 26
  • ... read more
  • MISSION CLERK PART 12
  • ... read more
    More News

    Thursday, 2 March 2017

    CRC BRC MODEL PAPER 2

    CRC BRC MODEL PAPER 2

    Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan visualizes Block Resource Centres/Urban Resource Centres/Cluster
    Resource Centres to provide academic support to schools on a continuous basis through teacher
    training, monthly meetings for academic consultations, etc. These sub-district academic support
    institutions are expected to work in close collaboration with DIETs to render support to schools to
    improve the quality of elementary education.
    Several studies, including an independent study commissioned by MHRD to ascertain the effectiveness
    of BRCs and CRCs in discharging their designated functions and responsibilities have observed that
    these institutions are by and large working sub-optimally and have limited or no impact in improving
    academic performance in primary and upper primary schools. The expected duties and responsibilities
    of the functionaries are based on the overall framework of implementation, There are however wide
    variations in the frequency of school visits on account of the administrative activities with the BEO
    and other officials at block/district levels, vast geographical area of operation without adequate
    transport facility, large coverage of schools and other institutions in the block. This has resulted in
    poor monitoring and supervision, especially in areas of teacher training and on-site-support. Further,
    the centres themselves lack infrastructure and resources.
    Towards this, it was felt that a set of operational guidelines may support the states to strengthen these
    resource centres. A Committee with the following members was proposed:
    Smt. Neelam Rao, Director (EE-II) – Chairperson
    Dr. Padma Sarangapani, Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
    Mr. Gajanan Patil, Principal DIET, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra
    Ms. B. H. Girija, Programme Officer, SSA, Karnataka
    Mr. Valand, State Coordinator for Teacher’s Training, SSA, Gujarat
    Mr. Tilakraj, District Coordinator for Teacher’s Training DIET, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh
    Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Chief Consultant, TSG – Convener
    The Terms of Reference for the Committee were:
    (a) Develop indicative guidelines for strengthening of Block and Cluster Resource Centres guidelines.
    These will cover the following:
    i. Objective and scope of work of such resource centres.
    ii. Location, coverage and geographical area and process of setting up of resource centres.
    iii. Manpower required at resource centres – their roles, job profiles, qualifications and selection
    criterion.
    iv. Professional development and training needs of block/cluster resource coordinators, particularly
    in the context of BRC/CRC providing training and on site academic support to teachers.
    v. Strengthening MIS for skills for teacher professional development at block/cluster level and its
    forward linkages.
    vi. Building sub district level resource network by forging linkages with resource persons,
    civil society and community.
    vii. Infrastructure and facilities that should be available in the resource centre.
    viii. Augmenting current set of resources – making choices on civil works, utilization of
    current spaces.
    ix. Providing academic and administrative support to resource centres through DIETs.
    x. Development of Key Resource Person at District/State Block Level for providing academic
    support to BRC/CRC – strategies and approaches.
    The CRP and BRP job profiles in all states are
    ambitious lists of expectations. Overall there seems
    to be either a lack of vision or too many expectations
    and aims for these institutions to achieve. In many
    states a high degree of ad-hocism pervades their
    work. Imbalance between administrative and
    academic work, low level to which the skills of
    CRPs are utilised and their low participation in
    decision making are common. A recent study of
    the BRP and CRPs suggests that many of them
    are dissatisfied with their job or the level of
    autonomy and flexibility that is permitted at their
    level. The conditions of work many a times are
    also not satisfactory. Physical facilities are far
    from satisfactory.
    They deal with unrealistic range of expectations
    and lack focus and integration into overall vision
    of school improvement. This seems to be a key
    reason for their inability to contribute in ways that
    visibly impact the system. They are very busy in
    work, yet this is not cumulative in terms of results.
    Tasks that look similar require time to be invested
    in planning, coordination and organization.
    BRCs conduct trainings and keep track of the
    total number of days of training achieved. It is
    usually expected that CRPs will do follow up of
    the trainings to ensure that they are implemented.
    Monthly meetings of teachers for the purpose of
    discussions are also required to nurture peer
    group based interactions and finding solutions.
    However it is now widely acknowledged that there
    is ‘training fatigue’ among teachers who find
    trainings are often of poor quality, lack relevance
    to their work, and are conducted without
    adequate scheduling. Access to resources is also
    a limitation. Maintaining data relating to training
    has been evolved by individual blocks.
    ❑ Training quality This is often compromised
    for a number of reasons: (1) good Master
    Resource Persons (MRPs) are not adequate.
    MRPs also do not get time before and after
    training to invest in discussions of design and
    conduct. Cascade trainings thus become
    routinised events with no connection between
    sessions. Expertise for school subjects of class
    IV upwards is also not easily available.
    (2) Advanced planning of trainings: is not
    achieved adequately in many states as fund
    flow is irregular. (3) Selection of teachers: is
    not based on any assessment of who requires
    what training. Either the selection of teachers
    is completely arbitrary, or the approach of
    same for everyone is followed. (4) Training
    content is limited and repetitive. (5) Other
    forms of teacher professional development
    such as exposure visits, attending seminars,
    participating as trainers are not considered
    as professional development.The mandate of the BRC-CRC institutions is
    school support and supervision. This mandate
    developed initially, through DPEP interventions.
    The scope of concerns has widened in the last
    15 years. First academic interests have widened
    and now include all grades up to elementary
    school and all subject areas. Secondly, the
    framework of school improvement and
    transformation has also widened and there are
    now more elaborate and detailed roles for
    community, investments on infrastructure, equity
    and out-of-children’s school enrolment, retention
    and remedial education, as well as a wider
    emphasis on quality of school including the
    oversight of educational achievements of
    children. The government schooling system is
    on the whole far more in the public eye and there
    are many groups involved and interested in
    contributing to school improvement. After RtE,
    there are greater requirements of systemic
    oversight of elementary schools.
    CLIKHERE N DOWNLOAD



    No comments:

    Post a Comment