The result is that there’s more apathy towards the boring yet essential and sometimes politically challenging work of weeding out administrative inefficiencies and cleaning up of rules and regulations and enforcing accountability.
- Don’t work just on infrastructure (loosely using it as representative for elements of second kind). Alongside, also work on elements of first kind that directly affect the processes in classroom, leveraging on the bandwidth created in the system by easing out constraints of second type.
- Don’t see infrastructure as the end goal. Instead, see it as an enabling support to the final goal of learning outcomes.
- In practical terms — view ‘learning’ as the end goal— in the process remove all the irritants that come in the way of implementing the initiatives that directly affect learning. Infrastructure (loose term representative of secondary elements) then becomes as a complement and not as an anchor.
At a time when everyone is pushing the governments to focus on learning, it is important to have a tacit understanding of the term ‘focus on learning’, else we might end up treading incorrect or inefficient paths.
Why do researchers always want to recommend fancy (often funny) proposals? Why don’t they give ‘fill up all teacher posts’, ‘increase personnel for monitoring’ as one of their recommendations? Do you think any of the other interventions are going to work without addressing these? Don’t tell me that you are trying to suggest ways to work despite these constraints. It’s like disguising band-aid as the surgery and doing that for long till the patient dies.