What the death of a degree says about education innovation
The B.El. Ed programme’s long history of facing rocky hurdles might kindle hope, but this time the rock has been thrown from the highest level of the profession
What joy can it possibly bring anyone to stop a successful course? This summer, the B.El.Ed. (Bachelor of Elementary Education) programme of Delhi University will admit students for the last time. It is not the first time that the B.El.Ed course is facing a threat, but now its closure seems imminent. Earlier threats were of a localised nature. But now the highest regulatory body, the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) has announced the end of B.El.Ed. in 2026. NCTE was set up to ensure quality standards in the training of schoolteachers. It is ironical that NCTE wants to close a course that principals of Delhi have praised over the years.
It was imagined by a group of scholars in the early 1990s. Inspiration to design a new kind of training programme came from the Supreme Court verdict in Mohini Jain vs. Karnataka (1992). Although the case was about the exorbitant fee charged in private professional colleges, the verdict drew a bigger picture for the system of education to register. The apex court linked education with the right to life — with dignity. This was a fresh interpretation of education, and it became a turning point. It opened a new pathway in society’s frozen neurons. So far education was perceived mainly as an instrument of social mobility and justice.
The fact that education gives dignity on human life and is, therefore, a part of the right to life, was a completely novel idea. It paved the way for recognition of elementary education as a fundamental right. An amendment in the Constitution to this effect and the creation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act were still years away, but a conceptual leap had been made.
The proposal to launch a specialised bachelor-level course in elementary education was unfamiliar, somewhat shocking for the academic council of Delhi University to handle. Many academic council members asked why a university should enter this terrain. So far — since the end of the 19th century — universities had dealt only with the training of secondary school teachers. The primary and the upper-primary levels were considered far too low for a university to touch. The proposal for B.El.Ed. had come from the Central Institute of Education (CIE), which had stayed comfortably focused on the B.Ed. course for secondary teachers since Independence. At the time of its foundation, the then education minister, Maulana Azad, had expressed the hope that this new institution would break new ground in primary education.
More than four decades on, this hope found an expression in the B.El.Ed. The academic council did approve it, after a decisive nudge from its jurist vice-chancellor, Upendra Baxi. However, the course was offered at just one institution: Jesus and Mary College (JMC) in the heart of the Capital. There was not enough staff available for all the ambitious papers offered in the first year, so some of us decided to commute between the north campus and Dhaula Kuan in south Delhi. But staff shortage was not the only hurdle left to be crossed.
The B.El.Ed. course had begun but it had not yet entered the list of courses approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC). This was no small battle, and B.El.Ed. could have lost it without the tenacity of our colleague Poonam Batra. And then came the biggest of all speed breakers: The Directorate of Education in the Delhi government. Without its approval, the graduates of B.El.Ed. would remain jobless. They were indeed graduates, but the bureaucracy kept us busy trying to prove that it was equivalent to a BA with a B.Ed. Had we won in this remarkable battle, our students would all have attained the trained graduate teacher (TGT) label. Since colonial times, this label is reserved for secondary-level teachers while our students were qualified only for the elementary level. So, they got the lower primary teacher (PRT) grade.
In the meanwhile, the JMC girls were making their mark on the Delhi public school scene. When the first batch applied for jobs in some of the elite schools of the capital, the principals were shocked. The depth of knowledge these girls showed in their recruitment interviews and later had no precedent in the system. They were also charged with energy to relate to children, undeterred by class size and conventional testing. Apparently, the course design had struck a deep chemistry between psychology, linguistics and the other social sciences. It was an unprecedented success story in the history of teacher education. Eight colleges were offering this course now, including prestigious institutions such as Miranda House and Lady Sri Ram College. B.El. Ed. had elevated the humble plane of teacher training to the level of a serious professional sphere.
That the course is now about to become history is hard to believe. The NCTE made public its new draft regulations on February 20. The draft says that B.El.Ed. will be discontinued from 2026, meaning there shall be no fresh admissions after the current session. The NCTE wanted public feedback on these regulations, but its mind is clear. It wants to bring India’s greatest innovation in teacher education to a close.
The programme’s long history of facing rocky hurdles might kindle hope, but this time the rock has been thrown from the highest level of the profession. When a regulator turns predator, it is no small matter. NCTE wants to sacrifice a symbol of local initiative and ambitious creativity. Or perhaps, it thinks the B.El.Ed. has had a long-enough inning. Never mind if the national policy pleads for encouragement to innovation. Killing a successful innovation perhaps offers its own unique taste.
Krishna Kumar is a former director of NCERT. His most recent book is Thank You, Gandhi. The views expressed are personal
