Impact Assessment Study of Tata Steel Education Excellence Programme (TEEP), Jamshedpur

Impact Assessment Study of Tata Steel Education Excellence Programme (TEEP), Jamshedpur Prof.S.Siva Raju Dean, School of Development Studies Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai Report prepared for Tata Quality Management Services July, 2013 0

Preface There is a need to assess and improve upon the quality of education and adapt the tools used therein in order to ensure an overall development of a child. In the education sector, the Malcolm Baldrige Criterion for Performance Excellence, a framework that any organization can use to improve overall performance, is used widely. The criterion is built on a set of interrelated, embedded beliefs and behaviours found in high-performing organizations. Assessment of quality improvement programmes at the school level in India is of recent origin and in this regard, the initiative of Tata Quality Management Services (TQMS) by launching the Tata Steel Education Excellence Programme (TEEP) is noteworthy. The TEEP, launched in 2003, has in the past nine years promoted Excellence in Education in the schools of Jamshedpur and a select few in the vicinity of Tata Steel s out locations. Under this programme the principal and teachers of participant schools are trained to take up the role of Assessors as against paid Quality professionals from outside. TEEP was designed to help students learn the concepts of quality and excellence in the early years of their lives thereby creating social capital for the country and ensuring that, in the later years, these concepts became an integral part of their professional lives. All resources required for it are disbursed by the Company as part of its corporate social responsibility. A yearly assessment of the school is organized to assess against the education excellence framework in these schools. Accordingly, the Company has approached Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to carry out a impact assessment study. The major objective of the study was to know the extent and nature of impact made by the TEEP to the beneficiaries of the programme in Jamshedpur. To fulfill the objective, a comprehensive social survey in the schools in Jamshedpur, was undertaken during May-July, 2013. The coverage was to the extent of 102 respondents -Principals, School Representatives and Teachers-,besides a few parents and students. Several persons have contributed in various capacities for the successful 1

completion of this major project. Our sincere thanks and deepest gratitude to all of them.. Mr N.K.Sharan, Head, Tata Quality Management Services for his vision to carry out such an important study and entrusting it to us. We are thankful to Mr. Sharan for his valuable suggestions at every stage of the study. Prof. S. Parasuraman, Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) for granting necessary permission to associate with this major project and for his constant encouragement. We are thankful to Ms. Deepa Mishra, Tata Quality Management Services for her co-ordination, co-operation and administrative support throughout the study. Thanks are due to all the TQMS officials, especially, Mr. Ramesh for their help during the field activities in Jamshedpur. Special thanks to Mr.Lakshman Sethuraman for his continual assistance for the successful completion of the project. We appreciate all the TISS survey team for their sense of responsibility and commitment in successfully carrying out the various research activities. We thank Ms.Sindhu Abhilash, Research assistant in the study for her continual assistance during the execution of various activities related to the project. Thanks are also due to other Project team - Mr. Gandharva Pednekar, Ms. Priyanka Bhosale and Ms. Rashmee Sharma for their continual support during the project. Last but not least our sincere thanks to the Principals, School Representatives, Teachers, Parents and Students in the respective study schools for their co-operation during the field work. Mumbai, July, 2013 Dr. S. Siva Raju Tata Institute of Social Sciences 2

Contents Sr. No. Name of the Chapter Page No. 1 Introduction 5 2 Methodology 11 3 Profile of the Participating Schools 15 4 Awareness and Objectives of the TEEP 22 5 Utilization of TEEP 54 6 Views about the TEEP 79 7 Summary and Recommendations 87 References 95 Appendix A : Details of TEEP award 96 Appendix B : Covering letter 98 Appendix C : Questionnaires 99 3

4

Chapter 1 Introduction A child's right to development is at the center in all aspects of a school and the education community surrounding it. This means that focus is on learning, which strengthens the capacities of children to act progressively on their own behalf through the acquisition of relevant knowledge, useful skills and appropriate attitudes; and which helps them create for themselves and others, places of safety, security and healthy interaction (Bernard, 1999 in UNICEF, 2000). This definition allows for an understanding of education as a complex system embedded in political, cultural and economic aspects of society. This gives rise to the need to constantly assess and accordingly improve upon the quality of education and adapt the tools used therein in order to ensure an overall development of a child. A concept originating in the developed countries, quality improvement programmes were first introduced to improve the business sector with the idea to enable organizations to analyze their overall performance, identify their strengths and weaknesses, share best practices and to make improvements. The United States of America (USA) was one of the first countries to formulate a quality improvement programme (under the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987). The idea was to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses with special focus on quality so that they could to compete in an ever-expanding, demanding global market. Since its introduction, the scope of the programme has been expanded to cover health care and educational organizations (in 1999) and to non-profit/government organizations (in 2005). In the education sector, the Malcolm Baldrige Criterion for Performance Excellence, a framework that any organization can use to improve overall performance, is used widely. The criterion is built on a set of interrelated, embedded beliefs and behaviours found in high-performing organizations. These core concepts form the foundation for integrating key business requirements within a results-oriented framework that create a basis for action and feedback. The main objective of Education Quality Improvement 5

Program (EQIP) is to promote excellence in teaching and learning throughout the school sector, while continuing the push for equity by ensuring the inclusion of all children at all levels of the basic education system. It is the most effective way to achieve quality assurance in education. QUIP is an evaluation tool that assists organizations to assess how well their education programmes are progressing. It provides organizations with recommendations and action plans for quality improvement. Assessment results apply to all facets of education. Several examples exist for quality improvements in education, the world over, in Australia and Europe and also in Singapore. Some are initiated by the government and some are planned and implemented by other voluntary and private agencies. In 1990, the Ministry of Education in Chile undertook a programme to improve the quality of primary schools in disadvantaged areas of the country. Approximately 10 per cent of the country s existing primary schools (about 1,200) took part in the programme at a cost of just under 17 million U.S.Dollars. This included about 7,000 teachers, 400 supervisors, and 200,000 students. The programme had at least four significant components. First, it provided for the improvement of learning environments, including improvement of infrastructure and provision of classroom libraries and learning materials. Second, it addressed the critical process element of teacher and supervisor training through weekly workshops in school with teachers from grades one through four. This training centred on improving teaching methods for basic skills and working more effectively with the local culture and community. During training, teachers worked in groups to discuss teaching practices and challenges, i.e., they engaged in cooperative learning that drew on authentic and relevant experiences and needs. In this way, the training programme modelled quality instructional practices and facilitated change in teachers knowledge, skills and attitudes. Third, the programme offered focused assistance for lower-achieving students. This special attention was provided through workshops delivered by young community members who had been trained as part of the project. This format succeeded in strengthening learning and improving self-esteem and social 6

competence. Finally, new textbooks were developed and provided to schools, along with manuals for teachers and supervisors. Teachers received training on the new materials as part of their weekly workshops (UNICEF, 2000). In some cases, in response to the failures of centralized school systems, many observers advocate decentralization and community participation (World Bank, 2004). Local communities arguably have the best knowledge about the needs of their children, strong incentives to monitor the performance of teachers and headmasters, and a comparative advantage in conducting this monitoring. Decentralization reforms are increasingly being adopted. At this point, however, rigorous empirical evidence on their impact is scarce. The EDUCO program in El Salvador is often cited as an example of the benefits of decentralization. Under the program, school committees are responsible for contracting and removing teachers and closely monitoring their performance and for equipping and maintaining the schools. All of their resources come from the central government and international organizations. An evaluation by Jimenez and Sawada (1999 2 ) finds that the program successfully expanded education in poor rural areas (its main objective) and also reduced student absences by 3 to 4 days in a 4-week period. No effect was found on student achievement. While developed nations have been utilizing the programme for assessing their education systems for decades, the situation varies for the developing countries. While developing countries have paid attention to expanding their education systems in the last 40 years, an example demonstrating the focus policy makers have placed on education being the inclusion of two education-centric goals out of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the quality of schooling in developing countries is often very low. As of 2002, 113 million children were still not enrolled at the primary level in school (UNDP, 2003). In addition, grade repetition and leaving school at an early age are common, teachers are often absent from classrooms, and many children learn much less than the learning objectives set in the official curriculum (Lockheed and Verspoor, 1991; Harbison and Hanushek, 1992; 7

Hanushek, 1995; Glewwe, 1999 in Glewwe and Kremer, 2005). Most of these issues are more or less reflective of the Indian education system too with few attempts made to assess the quality of educational institutes in the country with, subsequently, little or no room for improvement. Further, such quality improvement programmes at the school level, especially in developing countries like India are very negligible and therefore, efforts are needed to place such systems in practice which in turn, helps in improving the quality of education in these schools. Studies carried out on various aspects related to quality of education in India, especially at the primary and secondary levels, clearly revealed the inadequacy that exists in improving the curriculum reforms, restructuring of teacher training contents and methodology of training, besides improving upon infrastructure at the school level. Tata Steel Education Excellence Programme (TEEP) Assessment of quality improvement programmes at the school level in India is of recent origin and in this regard, the initiative of Tata Quality Management Services (TQMS) by launching the Tata Steel Education Excellence Programme (TEEP) in 2003 is noteworthy. Based on the Malcolm Baldrige Criterion for Performance Excellence and modified to suit Indian needs, TEEP has focused its attention on improving overall performance of schools in Jamshedpur and of some schools in the Tata Steel plant areas. It has been designed to help students learn the concepts of quality and excellence in the early years of their lives thereby creating social capital for the country and ensuring that, in the later years, these concepts became an integral part of their professional lives. Under this programme, principals and teachers of the participating schools have been trained to take on the role of 'assessors' as compared to paid external professionals. The resources required to implement the programme are disbursed by the Company as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. Under TEEP, schools are assessed on an annual basis to analyze their performance against the education excellence framework identified in the schools. Currently, the TEEP is covering private schools in the city of Jamshedpur. It is important, at this point of time, to have a comprehensive review of the programme on the basis of the feedback from various stakeholders associated with the TEEP. Accordingly, TQMS has approached Tata 8

Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to conduct such a feedback study. The key initiatives undertaken include: o Leadership development, quality circle, problem solving concepts and other development training to teachers and principals; o Development of performance measurement metrics, workshops on developing vision and revisiting those sessions with stakeholders; o Feedback surveys for parents and teachers/staff of the school; o Publication of a newsletter, on a quarterly basis; o Providing schools with a platform to facilitate sharing best practices; o Promoting Education Quality Improvement Projects (EQUIP); Annual assessment of schools and; o Annual Awards and recognition to honour schools that meet the programme criteria In order to be considered for inclusion in the TEEP, schools are required to score on a score band of 1000 points. Based on this score, schools participating in the programme for the first time, are honoured for scoring high on the score band while other schools are given 'sustenance awards' for maintaining excellence levels within specific score bands (See Appendix). Schools are assessed based on their responses to questions, framed mainly on values like leadership, strategic planning, student and stakeholder focus, measurement, analysis and knowledge management, workforce focus, process management and academic results, listed in a criteria book. These responses, which schools have to send through written applications, are analyzed and scored by trained assessors who are school principals and teachers. Training and utilizing teachers and principals as assessors has brought in a critical change in their mindset which is crucial for bringing about transformation in the school's facilities. The score given by the assessors is reviewed by a jury nominated by a TEEP executive-committee. The assessors also suggest strengths and Opportunities for Improvement (OFI) to each school to improve its performance. The written applications, submitted by the schools, ensure that they have successfully adopted a vision and have put in place 9

strategies and practices to achieve them. Objectives The major objective of the study is to determine the extent and nature of impact made by the TEEP to the beneficiaries of the programme. The specific objectives of the study are: i. To ascertain the usefulness, utility and the nature of change brought by the programme to the beneficiaries; ii. To get the feedback from the beneficiaries and other stakeholders about the procedure adopted in the implementation of the programme; and iii. To suggest appropriate changes if any, for the effective implementation of the programme. The Report comprises of altogether seven chapters. The Introductory chapter discusses the general importance of quality education in the society. A review of literature on existing practices of assessing and enhancing quality education follows. A description about the programme and its underlying principles are briefly elaborated upon. The Introduction to the report concludes with the objectives of the study. The Methodology of the study is discussed in the chapter section, wherein the approaches and tools used in the collection of data, its segregation and analysis are explained. Thereafter, the major findings of the study are discussed in the next four chapters III, IV, V and VI, supported by qualitative data collected from all the stakeholders. In addition to consolidated qualitative responses, some specific observation by the stakeholders have also been highlighted. The third chapter covers a school profile, under which details of the number of schools participating in the programme, school's staff composition, board of affiliation, social and gender-wise composition of students and key stakeholder groups are discussed. Chapter IV elaborates upon the objectives and awareness of the programme, as perceived by all the stakeholder groups. Chapter V discusses the utilization of the programme, the extent of the stakeholders' participation and the benefit they received from the same. Chapter VI covers the overall view about the TEEP. The last chapter VII summary of the study, with a few recommendations that the programme can adopt for its better implementation in future. 10

Chapter 2 Methodology Both secondary and primary data were used to fulfill the objectives of the study. Information about the participating schools in Jamshedpur, the programme and its salient features were obtained from the sponsors of the study. A list of the schools, with the contact information of the principals/vice-principals was drawn up to prepare a list of stakeholders involved in the programme. Accordingly, a tool was prepared for data collection, keeping in mind the different stakeholders, viz., school principals, representatives of the school management, teachers (Programme Assessors and those involved in documentation of the programme), parents and students. Prior to the data collection exercise, the filed team had also carried out a pilot visit to the study area prior to data collection which contributed significantly towards finalizing data collection tools and understand the TEEP process at the ground level and gain insight into the programme. Study Area : Jamshedpur Jamshedpur is the largest urban conglomeration and most populous city in the state of Jharkhand, India. Jamshedpur is the first planned industrial city of India, founded by the late Jamshedji Nusserwanji Tata. It is also known as Steel City or Tata Nagar. Jamshedpur is the headquarters of the East Singhbhum district of Jharkhand. According to the 2011 census of India, Jamshedpur has a population of 1,337,131. Tribals constitute around 28% of the population. Jamshedpur has an average literacy rate of 85.94%, higher than the national average of 74%. In Jamshedpur, 11.5% of its population is under six years of age. The population is multi-ethnic owing to migration of people from all over the country to work in the numerous industries present in the city. It ranks 36th among the 53 million-plus cities in India. It is located on the Chota Nagpur plateau and is surrounded by the picturesque Dalma Hills. The city is bordered by the rivers Subarnarekha and Kharkai on the north and west parts of the city. 11

Jamshedpur is a major industrial centre of East India. It houses companies like Tata Steel, Tata Motors, Tata Power, Lafarge Cement, Telcon, BOC Gases, Praxair, TCE, TCS, Timken, TRF,Tinplate and many more. It is home to one of the largest industrial zones of India known as Adityapur which houses more than 1,200 small and medium scale industries. Jamshedpur was declared the 7th cleanest city of India for the year 2010 according to survey by the Government of India. It has been predicted as the 84th fastest growing city in the world for the timeframe 2006 2020. A major part of the city is run by Tata Steel itself. Jamshedpur has been selected as one of the cities for the Global Compact Cities Pilot Programme by United Nations, the only one to be selected in India as well as South Asia Map of city of Jamshedpur 12

In the field of education, the Steel City has 183 schools and 13 colleges. Of these, 25 schools and one inter-college are managed by the JUSCO Education Department. They cater to over thirty thousand children, with fees at a concessional rate. Notable Institutes in the city include XLRI (Xavier Labour Relations Institute), the oldest and one of the best management institutes in India, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, and the National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, an Institute of National Importance in the field of engineering/technology. The National Metallurgical Laboratory is located here. The third in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) family of 38 laboratories, NML was inaugurated and dedicated to the nation on 26 November 1950 by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru "in a spirit of hope and faith in the future". Shavak Nanavati Technical Institute (SNTI) was one of the first labour training institutes of the country and gives technical education to the employees of Tata group of companies and others too. This institute has the largest library in town. Tata Steel also endows scholarships, enabling talented students to pursue higher studies. These include the Golden Jubilee scholarship (KUNAL) which is awarded to deserving students. It is one of the highest honour endowed upon the talented students from Jamshedpur Approach to the Study The questionnaire method was used to gather information from the stakeholders. Questionnaires were segregated as per different stakeholder groups viz. School principals, school management representatives, teachers; parents and; students. Given the fact that the sponsor had conducted briefing sessions regarding the study among the school staff and the professional qualifications of the respondents and (teachers, principals, representatives of the school management, parents and students), one set of questionnaires for each category of the respondents were mailed to each school to expedite the process. Each set, along with a covering letter (see Appendix) addressed to the Head of the Institute was dispatched to all the 40 schools 13

participating in the programme and also to officials from the TEEP. The Heads of the respective institutions were requested to fill out the questionnaires and circulate the other questionnaires in the package to the respective stakeholders (school management, parents and students), and send the filled questionnaires to the TISS representative at Jamshedpur. While the TEEP officials e-mailed their responses, the TISS field staff during her visit to the schools requested the authorities to fill out and send the questionnaire packages had been made.with such concerted efforts from the on-site TISS representatives, a sizeable total sample of 102 total responses (Principals (26),School representatives(13),teachers(63)),besides Parents(19), Students(21) was achieved. During the course of the study, the field investigator conducted visits to the schools in order to gain further insights into the programme and to assess its impact. Data Analysis The collected data was analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Based on the collected data from 102 respondents in all, responses from principals, teachers and representatives of the school management have been grouped like principals and representatives from school management (39) as one category and teachers (comprised of Assessors and those involved in programme documentation) (63) as another category. Two-way tables have been used and the same have also been presented graphically to highlight the major findings of the study. Due to fewer numbers of TEEP officials, parents and students responding, the data have been analyzed and interpreted qualitatively. 14

Chapter 3 Profile of Participating Schools In order to get an understanding about the schools participating in the programme, a profile of all the participating schools is presented. An attempt is made to gather information about the number of participants per year since the programme s inception, the board of affiliation and main educational programme. In addition, a social profile of the students and a gender-wise distribution of students across the schools has been prepared. Lastly, a profile of the schools, according to the composition of the school's teaching, non-teaching and administrative staff is also made. Yearly Participation of Schools: Distribution of the yearly participation of schools in the programmers shows(table 3.1) that the year 2007 saw the highest (41) number of schools participating in the TEEP, followed closely by 34, 33 and 32 schools participating in each preceding year from 2011 to 2009 respectively. From the table, it is also clear that since the first year (2004) when 17 schools participated in the TEEP, there has been an increase in the participation of schools till the year 2007 with 22 schools participating in 2005 and 29 in 2006. However, the year 2009 onwards, a diminishing trend is seen in the schools participation with only 20 schools participating in the programme in 2012. Table 3.1: Distribution of Schools participated in TEEP by Year Year Number of Schools participated in TEEP 2004 17 2005 22 2006 29 2007 41 2009 32 2010 33 2011 34 2012 35* 15

(Regular Assessment 20+ Basic Assessment 15) 2013 38* (Regular Assessment 18+ Basic Assessment 20) * In the year 2012, TEEP started two distinct types of assessments (Regular & Basic). Schools under the score of 350 participated in the Basic Assessments Figure 3.1: Distribution of Number of Participating Schools by Year No. of Schools 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 41 20 32 33 34 15 29 22 20 17 18 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Regular assessment Year Basic assessment A qualitative analysis of the data collected from other stakeholders, namely, school principals, teachers, management representatives, parents and students, reveals that overall, stakeholders have called for the TEEP to be held on a biennial basis. Among the school teachers and principals, the general perception of the TEEP is favourable as reported by most school teachers, principals and school management staff who said that the programme has brought about an improvement in their school facilities and in education in general. However, it has also been reported that the programme could allot more time to schools in order to ensure its thorough implementation. A few observations from some principals: Good vision, but implementation seems to be difficult due to indifferent attitude, less enthusiasm and half-hearted involvement. A few sincere persons are over-burdened. Very poor time management. Site visit and presentation 16

time should be frozen. All members do not contribute equally. Some members contribution was zero. Interestingly, parents and students were largely in favour of the TEEP, with the general opinion that it should be continued. School Board Affiliation The highest (44.1%) proportion of respondents informed that their school follow the ICSE Board, followed by slightly more than a quarter (26.5%) who mention the CBSE Board. State Boards are mentioned by in 17.6 per cent of the respondents while 11.8 per cent of them stated that their school follow other boards. (Table 3.2) Table 3.2: Distribution of Respondents by School Board Affiliation Board Percent (N=102) ICSE 44.1 CBSE 26.5 State 17.6 Others 11.8 Figure 3.2: Distribution of Respondents by School Board Affiliation 11.8 17.6 44.1 26.5 ICSE CBSE State Others Educational Programmes: The highest (62.8%) proportion of respondents have stated that secondary (Class 17

VIII to X) as the main educational programme in their schools. Over a half (50.4%) of the respondents have specified that their schools are at the pre-primary level as its main education programme, followed by 47.8 per cent respondents each having the primary and secondary (Class V to VII) as the main education programme. Less than half (44.2%) of them stated the higher secondary level as its main educational programme, while very few (3.5%) respondents who have reported other educational programmes. Table 3.3: Distribution of Respondents by Main Educational Programme Main Educational Programme Percent (N=102) Pre-primary 50.4 Primary(1st-4th) 47.8 Secondary (5th to7th 47.8 Secondary (8th to 10th) 62.8 Higher Secondary(11th -12th) 44.2 Other (specify) 3.5 *Multiple choice A majority (97.1%) of the total respondents have informed that their schools have co-ed segment of students, followed by less than half (48%) respondents who mentioned general segment of students. Respondents from schools with the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) segment are found to be in the proportion of 33.3 per cent each. Respondents from schools with OBC segment of students are at 31.4 per cent. A few (14.8%) respondents have reported having other segments of students (Adivasis, BPL, TISCO employees) in their schools. Respondents from schools with girls only and EBC segments are very few (7.8 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively). Table 3.4: Distribution of Respondents by Key Segments and Stakeholder Groups Key Student Segment Percent(N=102) Gender Boys - Girls only 7.8 Co-ed 91.2 Other Profile of Students General 48 OBC 31.4 SC 33.3 18

Staff Composition ST 33.3 EBC 6.9 OTHERS 14.8 (Adivasis, BPL, TISCO employees) *Multiple choice The highest (29.4%) proportion of respondents stated that they have teaching staff in the 21-40 range in their school, followed closely by 20.5 per cent of respondents with teaching staff in the 41-60 range. Staff strengths between 61-80 and 81-100 are seen in the schools mentioned by 9.8 per cent each respondents. Very few (8.8%) respondents reported teaching staff in a range between 101-120 ; while a very small (5.9%) proportion of respondents reported teaching staff strengths in the range of 1-20 staff. Table 3.5: Distribution of Respondents by School Staff Number of staff Percent(N=102) Teaching Staff 01-20 5.9 21-40 29.4 41-60 20.5 61-80 9.8 81-100 9.8 101-120 8.8 No Answer 15.8 Mean 59 Non-teaching staff 0-5 31.4 06-10 20.6 11-15 19.6 16-20 7.8 21-25 1 No Answer 19.6 Mean 11 Administrative staff 0-5 52.9 6-10 21.6 11-15 5.9 No Answer 19.6 Mean 7 19

The highest (31.4%) proportion of respondents reported that their non-teaching staff are in the 0-5 range, followed by 20.6 per cent of non-teaching staff in the 06-10 range. Staff strengths between 11-15 and 16-20 are reported by 19.6 per cent and 7.8 per cent of the respondent respectively. The data thus clearly reveals the small number of non-teaching staff that exists in the schools. More than half (52.9%) of the respondents stated that their school has administrative staff in the range of 0-5, followed by 21.6 per cent and 5.9 per cent administrative staff in the ranges of 6-10 and 1-15 respectively. Teaching Mechanism A majority (98%) of respondents have adopted audio/visual mechanisms in educational programmes, followed closely by 94.1 per cent respondents with the teaching method as their main educational programme. Computers, followed very closely by teaching aids are reported as adopted teaching mechanisms by 91.2 per cent and 90.2 per cent respondents respectively. Table 3.6: Distribution of Respondents by Adopted Teaching Mechanisms Adopted Teaching Mechanisms Percent (N=102) Teaching 94.1 Computers 91.2 Audio/Visual 98 Teaching Aids 90.2 *Multiple choice Figure 3.3: Distribution of Respondents by Adopted Teaching Mechanisms 20

Percent of Respondents 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 98 94.1 91.2 90.2 Audio/Visual Teaching Computers Teaching Aids Teaching Mechanism The data on school profile clearly shows that the programme is successful, as revealed by the increasing number of participating schools each year. However, the qualitative data show that the stakeholders, though in its favour, have suggested a biennial programme to be conducted, instead of the existing annual pattern. The ICSE Board of affiliation, followed by the CBSE is adopted by most schools in the study area. Main educational programmes in the schools include the secondary, preprimary, primary (I-IV), secondary (V-VII) and higher secondary(xi-xii). A majority of the schools follow the co-educational pattern of student segments, while details pertaining to the school's staff composition reveal that a majority of the schools have more numbers of teaching staff, followed by non-teaching staff and administrative staff. The data on teaching mechanisms adopted in all the participating schools reveal that most of the schools within the study area utilize all types of teaching mechanisms to a great extent.. 21

Chapter 4 Awareness and Objectives of the TEEP A crucial aspect of the present study was an assessment of the levels of awareness of the programme in general and its objectives in particular among the stakeholders. Accordingly, respondents were asked to state their awareness levels of the programme before it was introduced in their school. To gauge the reach of the programme through various channels of communication, they were asked about the source of awareness of the programme. Data were also collected to gain insight into the clarity of the programme, as perceived by the various respondents. Specifically, the extent to which these objectives were achieved was also analyzed. Awareness of TEEP The below table shows that a little more than half (53.9%) of the schools were already aware about the TEEP before it was introduced while 45.1 per cent respondents stated that they became aware of the programme after its introduction. Table 4.1: Distribution of Respondents by Awareness about the TEEP before participation Sources of Programme Awareness Awareness about TEEP Percent(N=102) Yes 53.9 No 45.1 Various channels of information dissemination were listed out to each respondent in an attempt to understand the main information source for the TEEP. The highest (39%) proportion of respondents stated that the company was their major source of information for the programme, followed by 27 per cent respondents who stated that colleagues at their institution were their major source of information. Other educational institutes were reported as the next major information source about the TEEP by 18 per cent respondents. Few (15%) respondents stated 22

interaction among the community members provided them information about the programme, followed by 13.2 per cent respondents who reported that their colleagues at their institution were a major information source and few (12%) other respondents reported newspapers as their major source of information. A small (9%) proportion of respondents stated other sources as providing them with information about TEEP while 3 per cent and 2 per cent respondents stated that magazines and voluntary/local organization were the major sources of information about TEEP. Table 4.2: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Sources of Awareness of TEEP Sources Principals & School Representatives(N=39) Teachers(N=63) Total(N=102) Newspaper 5.3 16.1 12.0 Magazine 5.3 1.6 3.0 Other 18.4 17.7 18.0 Educational institutes (specify) Colleagues at 13.2 35.5 27.0 your institution Voluntary/Local 2.6 1.6 2.0 organization Interaction 10.5 17.7 15.0 among the community members TATA STEEL 44.7 35.5 39.0 Others (specify) 5.3 11.3 9.0 From among the principals and representatives of school management, less than half (44.7%) reported that the company was their major source of information about the TEEP, while 35.5 per cent of teachers stated that the company was their major source of information, along with 35.5 per cent respondents who stated that their colleagues at the institution were their major source of information for the programme. Some (18.4%) principals and school management representatives stated 23

that other educational institutes were a major source of information for the TEEP. Figure: 4.1: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Sources of Awareness of TEEP 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.3 16.1 12 5.3 1.6 3 18.4 17.7 18 13.2 35.5 27 2.6 1.6 2 10.5 17.7 15 44.7 35.5 39 5.3 11.3 9 Principals & School Representatives Teachers Total Among the teachers, 17.7 per cent respondents each stated that other educational institutes and interaction among community members provided them with most information on the programme. While, few (10.5%) principals and representatives of the school management stated that interaction among community members provided them with information about the TEEP. Very few (5.3%) principals and representatives of the school management each reported that newspapers, magazines and other sources were their major source of information about the TEEP. With respect to the teachers, 16.1 per cent stated that newspapers were a major source of information for the TEEP, followed by 11.3 per cent who reported other sources as their major source of information for the programme. A minor (1.6%) proportion of teachers each reported that magazines and voluntary/local organizations provided them with most information on the TEEP, while 2.6 per cent principals and representatives of the school management reported voluntary/local organizations as their major source of information for the programme. Clarity of Programme Objectives 24

Sound programme implementation is dependent, to a large extent, on its clarity to the stakeholders. In this regard, respondents were asked to state the full, partial or lack of clarity about the TEEP objectives. Table 4.3: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Clarity about TEEP Objectives Level of clarity Principals & School Representatives(N=39) Teachers(N=63) Total(N=102) Fully clear Partially clear Not at all clear 71.4 49.1 57.8 17.1 43.6 33.3 11.4 7.3 8.9 With respect to the clarity of programme objectives, more than half (57.8%) of the total respondents stated that the TEEP objectives were fully clear to them, followed by 33.3 per cent respondents who reported that the TEEP objectives were partially clear to them, while few (8.9%) respondents reported a complete lack of clarity of the programme objectives. Differences have been observed among principals and representatives of school management on one hand and teachers on the other hand with regard to the clarity of the TEEP objectives. A majority (71.4%) of principals and representatives of school management reported that the objectives of the TEEP were fully clear to them while almost half (49.1%) teachers reported full clarity on programme objectives. However, while some (17.1%) principals and school management representatives stated that the TEEP objectives were partially clear to them, less than half (43.6%) teachers reported that the TEEP objectives were partially clear to them. It is also interesting to note that, in comparison, very few (7.3%) teachers, vis-à-vis 11.4 per cent principals and representatives of school management stated that the TEEP objectives were not at all clear to them. 25

Figure 4.2: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Clarity about TEEP Objectives The qualitative analysis reveals a few major observations among the school staff. Among those who stated a partial or lack of clarity about the TEEP objectives, two major reasons were cited. One reason was stated to be the complicated nature of the criteria book. Respondents stated that the instructions in the criteria book given to the schools were difficult to understand. Lack of clarity of the language used to explain the process of the programme was also reported as a reason for poor clarity on the TEEP. Another major reason for poor clarity about the TEEP objectives was reported due to prior experience of the institution. The older schools reported a lack of clarity with regard to the additions that the TEEP would make to their performance. The newly established institutions reported lack of thorough expertise and training in implementing the programme. A few specific observations made by school teachers: At times, we felt the approach was not relevant to school as it is not product based, the language used was too technical, the questions were confusing and complicated Language in the criteria book was difficult to comprehend. 26

As the school had been showing good academic records and was doing well in other areas, it was not very clear how TEEP program was going to help In their perception of the programme objectives, as revealed by the qualitative analysis, parents mostly reported TEEP objectives to be personality development, empowering students and improving the quality of education. Some parents also stated that they felt that the TEEP was aimed at achieving excellence in all fields of education and that the TEEP would improve teaching standards.. However, some parents also mentioned that their perception of the TEEP objectives was restricted to learning by doing (the leuriatic method) and basic classroom teaching (chalk and black board method). Some specific observations by parents: TEEP enhances the quality of education not only by improving education of our children, but also by making parents aware of good education practices According to the students, the major objectives of the TEEP include adopting new teaching methods in school, enhancement of the education system, overall student improvement, building ethical values, building confidence among students and providing them with better opportunities. Some students observed: TEEP involves measuring, analyzing and improvement. According to the TEEP officials, the major objectives of the programme included promoting excellence in schools within Jamshedpur, encouraging improvement and innovation amongst schools, enabling sharing of best practices between schools. While promoting excellence amongst students and extending excellence beyond Jamshedpur, at a national level were stated as the evolved objectives of the scheme. Objectives of TEEP With regard to specific TEEP objectives school environment and infrastructure, innovation in teaching methods, best practices, stakeholder focus, focus on learning 27

experience, focus on school strategy and planning, focus on student development, focus on fostering excellence respondents were asked their views in terms of the extent to which the TEEP has achieved them. School Environment With regard to whether the objectives of the TEEP have been met to a great extent, among the total respondents, a majority (77.6%) stated that focus on improvement in school environment - safety, discipline, emergency preparedness, infrastructure was achieved. A majority (80.6%) of the school principals and representatives of the school management and majority (75.8%) of the teachers too reported that the same objective was achieved to a great extent. Overall, among the school staff, overall excellence in the school and measurement of all areas were reported as the major changes observed after the TEEP. Around 20.4 per cent respondents stated that this objective was met to a certain extent. A relatively lower (16.7%) proportion of principals and school management representatives, as compared to 22.6 per cent teachers stated that the objective of focusing on improvement in school environment safety, discipline, emergency preparedness, and infrastructure was met with to a certain extent. Very few (2%) respondents stated that this objective was to an insignificant extent. About 2.8 per cent school principals and representatives of school management and 1.6 per cent teachers stated the same.. Table 4.4: Percent Distribution of Respondents by Perception on the extent of achievement of Objectives of TEEP Objectives of TEEP Principals & School Representatives (N=39) Teachers(N=63) Total(N=102) Great certain insignifi Great certain insignifi Great certain insigni cant cant ficant Encourages promotion of the 75.7 21.6 2.7 61.3 35.5 3.2 66.7 30.3 3.0 concept of Quality and Performance excellence Encourages improvement and 62.2 32.4 5.4 50.8 41.0 8.2 55.1 37.8 7.1 innovation in teaching methods Facilitates communication and 62.2 35.1 2.7 49.2 41.0 9.8 54.1 38.8 7.1 sharing of best practices among Serves as a working tool for 64.9 35.1.0 46.8 48.4 4.8 53. 43.4 3.0 28

undertaking and improving 5 performance and guiding the school s planning and opportunities for learning (Helps identify, report & improve performance paraers) Involves all stakeholders 56.8 40.5 2.7 56.5 38.7 4.8 56.6 39.4 4.0 Focus on improvement in 52.8 47.2.0 47.5 50.8 1.6 49.5 49.5 1.0 academic results Encourages focus on overall 69.4 30.6 --- 61.3 38.7 ---- 64.3 35.7 ---- development of students Focus on Stakeholder : using 66.7 30.6 1 58.1 40.3 1 61.2 36.7 2 feedback for performance improvement Focus on teacher development 54.1 43.2 2.7 60.0 38.3 1.7 57.7 40.2 2.1 & training Focus on Education Quality 48.6 51.4.0 54.8 41.9 3.2 52.5 45.5 2.0 Improvement Projects (EQUIP) for performance improvement Focus on improvement in 80.6 16.7 2.8 75.8 22.6 1.6 77.6 20.4 2.0 school environment-safety, discipline, emergency preparedness, infrastructure Focus on Comparison between 27.8 61.1 11.1 43.5 53.2 3.2 37.8 56.1 6.1 schools Focus on Sharing of results 25.0 61.1 13.9 27.4 61.3 11.3 26.5 61.2 12.2 Focus on Learning experience 58.8 38.2 2.9 44.3 52.5 3.3 49.5 47.4 3.2 Focus on fostering excellence 47.1 44.1 8.8 41.9 53.2 4.8 43.8 50.0 6.3 in students Focus on fostering innovation & out of box activities 47.2 44.4 8.3 53.2 37.1 9.7 51.0 39.8 9.2 As noted by principals: There is a Division In-charge at every level, stern audits, hazard hunting and safety audits. Most parents reported about the safety measures adopted by schools, in terms of addressing this TEEP objective. However, they also suggested an improvement in the already existing safety measures undertaken at the school. Parents also mentioned that they noticed an increased sensitivity towards the environment among students. Some specific observations by parents: 29

The TEEP objective towards the school environment must bring overall improvement in school infrastructure Students, in general, stated staggered dismissal process, mock drills, fire training and evacuations and better assembly discipline as some of the changes in their school, as brought about through the TEEP. Installation of CC-TV cameras on school premises and separate recess timings for the junior and senior students were also reported. In particular, students observed: More safety precautions are being taken and we have seen new safety measures. The TEEP officials, who also reported the achievement of the objective of focusing on school environment, stated significant changes in the school environment such as Eco clubs, SAFE clubs, mock drills, dismissal of students, Smart Boards, childfriendly furniture in the primary section, Internet access, LAN connectivity and IT enabled systems. Overall Student Development More than half (64.3%) of the total respondents stated that the objective of encouraging focus on overall development of students was met with to a great extent. Among the school principals and representatives of school management, 69.4 per cent stated that encouraging focus on overall development of students was achieved to a great extent, while 61.3 per cent teachers stated the same objective was achieved to a great extent. Overall, among school staff, it was reported that the TEEP promoted excellence at all levels and helped improve quality in all aspects of education. The objective of encouraging focus on overall development of students was met to a certain extent, according to 35.7 per cent respondents. About 30.6 per cent principals and school management representatives and 38.7 per cent teachers stated that the TEEP achieved the objective of encouraging focus on overall 30

development of students to a certain extent. According to some principals, the TEEP broadened their perspective and allowed the promotion of teaching. Some others also mentioned that the programme made the school truly committed to excellence. Some specific observations by teachers: The programme creates awareness about quality and excellence. TEEP tracks performance management by facts. The programme creates awareness about quality and excellence. TEEP tracks performance management by facts. Figure 4. 3Percent Distribution of Respondents by Perception on the extent of achievement of Objectives of TEEP-Overall Development of Students Percent of Respondents 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 69.4 30.6 Principals & School Representatives 61.3 38.7 64.3 35.7 0 0 0 Teachers Total Great extent certain extent insignificant extent Parents largely perceived the TEEP as more student centric since they also mentioned overall student development and continuous and comprehensive monitoring of the students. Some parents also reported that the programme also created values among students. 31

The programme will help the students become better citizens. According to the students, the TEEP created awareness among them and gave them the encouragement to achieve their goal. Some of them also stated that the TEEP focused on improvement in students performances and also instilled confidence among them. Specific observation by students: Under the TEEP, our school initiated Ethics Day. Through the programme, moral values are developed in students. Encouraging focus on overall development of students was met to a great extent was mentioned by the TEEP officials as well. It was elaborated that the focus on overall student development was part of the programme criteria, under which schools reported results on the same. Stakeholder Focus for Performance Improvement Focus on stakeholders (using feedback for performance improvement) was also reported to have been achieved to a great extent by 61.2 per cent respondents. The same was stated for this objective by schools principals and school management representatives (66.7%) and was reported by little more than half (58.1%) teachers. With regard to focusing on stakeholders (using feedback for performance improvement, 36.7 per cent respondents stated that the same was met to a certain extent while 30.6 per cent principals and school management representatives and 40.3 per cent teachers stated this objective was met to a certain extent. Very few (2%) of the respondents mentioned that the objective of focusing on stakeholders (using feedback for performance improvement), was met to an insignificant extent. One per cent school principals and management representatives and teachers each stated that the objective of focusing on stakeholders (using feedback for performance improvement) was met to an insignificant level. 32