5 min readApr 30, 2025 10:35 PM IST
First published on: Apr 30, 2025 at 10:27 PM IST
In her article titled ‘Teacher Education in India needs much more than a one-size-fits-all formula’ (IE, April 28) Anamika makes a case to reintroduce and expand the B.El.Ed programme, which the Draft NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2025, has proposed to phase out. While B.El.Ed was introduced with a promise in the academic year 1994-95; it remained confined to a few colleges within the University of Delhi and struggled to expand. Today, as India embraces a new policy paradigm under the NEP 2020, to which I have contributed, our focus must shift from sentimental defenses of legacy programmes to building future-ready systems. Nonetheless, this transition has been difficult for all ecosystems globally, as policymakers want to influence what learners learn in classrooms.
The proposed Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) offers a coherent, flexible, and forward-looking alternative. Understandably, some concerns have been raised. But resisting reform to preserve a course rooted more in institutional nostalgia than in contemporary needs does little to serve the students and teachers. The existing programmes have failed and disregarded the evolving needs of the students. However, ITEP brings coherence and cultivates the desire to become a teacher. Otherwise, students interested in becoming teachers have confusing and conflicting pathways.
Proponents of maintaining the status quo have raised concerns about the suitability of ITEP to contemporary needs. This is misreading the draft regulations and the larger policy intent for three reasons. First, the regulations are attempting to establish academic freedom within the curriculum discipline. Thus, if a department offering ITEP believes that it must begin “with an introduction to the Indian Constitution that serves as a moral compass for every teacher,” it is empowered to do so. As academicians, we are expected to bring innovation to our teaching and research methods.
Having said that, of course, the larger question about standardisation and university autonomy is important and must be collectively and continuously thought about for creating a strong education system in India. Moreover, such efforts by regulatory institutions must be backed by adequate reasoning built through intensive and diverse stakeholder consultations. Some of the criticisms raised by Anamika are worthy of being further explored and addressed by the regulators.
Second, ITEP offers better and efficient regulation for both the regulator and students, as the very nature of learning experiences a radical transformation. For instance, B.El.Ed might not lead to smooth transitions under the proposed academic bank of credits. Such ease in both creating and receiving innovative ideas is intricately linked to the importance of “universal access to quality education” as articulated in NEP 2020’s introduction. This is the current regime’s intent towards inclusive teacher education, which the education minister Dharmendra Pradhan has often emphasised. It is useful to reflect that this move also has second-order effects, such as curbing the activities of “profit-accruing” teacher-education colleges run by private entities that have mushroomed in the past few decades.
Third, it is hard to decipher how B.El.Ed is a better alternative to ITEP in ensuring quality training. The “much sought-after” nature of B.El.Ed could simply be the case of the strong reputation commanded by the Department of Education, University of Delhi, and not a concentrated popularity of the course.
Arguments have also been raised that B.El.Ed offers specialised training that caters to all curricula. It is tough to comprehend this as ITEP students graduate with a dual advantage: A general degree and a specialisation in preparatory, foundational, or secondary-level education. This flexibility is essential for creating a professional teaching workforce equipped for the future. Moreover, by design, ITEP has been woven as an Indian response to integrate world-class pedagogies and related techniques for better educational outcomes at large. In other words, ITEP is antithetical to the image of regression that is being imposed on it by critics.
At this stage, it is also useful to acknowledge that we often develop an emotional attachment to some programmes, sometimes at the expense of adapting to new realities. Education is an ever-evolving sector as it continuously replaces the old with the new, which requires a resilient mindset. Innovation must evolve and scale.
India’s teacher education system is not short of diagnoses — most stakeholders recognise the deep-rooted maladies, from the declining attractiveness of teaching as a profession to the insufficient pool of well-trained educators. As Anamika has rightly argued, we need support in the system, but that must be quality support. Thus, what is needed now is a broader, future-facing debate about what kind of content and training we must provide our teachers to prepare them to holistically educate future generations.
In this context, ITEP is among the best, most future-ready options we can offer to aspiring teachers. It aligns with global trends, simplifies academic progression, and builds a coherent foundation for professional excellence in teaching. Constructive suggestions to strengthen ITEP are welcome, but resisting reform merely to preserve legacy programmes is a disservice to students and the larger education system we strive to strengthen.
The writer is the Director of the Centre of Policy Research and Governance, and he was part of the ITEP Committee
he proposed Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) offers a coherent, flexible, and forward-looking alternative. (Representational Photo) 
Share
