“When i was a student, there used to be elections for becoming a monitor. I always contested, though i would get only mine vote. The ones who got selected would remain monitor for only few days, because they would favour their friends. Then the teacher would make me the monitor. My teacher encouraged me and taught me that it was not important to obtain majority votes always. What is important is to work sincerely as per your conviction. The lesson has remained with me ever since”. Nilesh Pande, teacher, Parbhani
We were talking to a group of teachers and students in Parbhani. They were asked to close their eyes and remember their favourite teacher and then discuss in a group, what qualities make them, them.
Three set of qualities emerged. The first set was the personal traits of a teacher. A teacher who has moral values, who is disciplined, dedicated. Who takes efforts for teaching. Who works passionately.
The second set was his(includes her) command over his subject and the way he(includes she) taught. The teachers who involved them in learning, who could make the subject interesting were the ones who were remembered. A teacher equated the role of an ideal teacher with a catalyst – facilitating the learning.
The third set was the most important and critical. “Teachers who understood us. Teachers who listened. Who went even out of the way for solving our issues. Who did not harp only on their own subject, but identified what was the special interest and potential of each child. A teacher who loved all the students.” A teacher recalled how his ideal teacher would make all the students – from rural areas, urban areas, poor, rich sit together and treated them equally – and never made anyone feel that he or she was superior or inferior.
The attitude of the teacher – considering himself as a co-learner in teaching – was mentioned as an admirable trait. This necessitated a friendly relation and an open communication between teacher and students and willingness to listen to the student’s point of view, even if it is different. It was recognized that in the absence of the same, small gestures – for example a student laughing at something construed by a teacher as an insult to him/her – may lead to misunderstanding.
Later, in another taluka of Parbhani district, Selu, we talked to some other teachers and students. This time we asked them to close their eyes and remember one of their teachers whom they hated : and share what made them do so. The qualities that emerged were, understandably quite the opposite of above. Some of them were gross – moral character, drunk in class, sleeping in class, physical torture. Some were more subtle. Being partial to some students, for example. One teacher mentioned that sometimes, if a teacher is irritable for some reason for e.g. if he feels that he has to do unnecessary administrative work – he may retaliate by being unkind to students!
One teacher remarked that why such qualities were expected from a teacher only. They are ‘human’ qualities expected in every individual. Indeed. As educators, however, we discussed that teachers had an opportunity to influence children/ students in their impressionable years. And this was an unparallel opportunity.
There was a deeper discussion on few traits. Many mentioned discipline as an admirable trait. Separately, while one teacher advocated even the use of physical punishment as acceptable, students vociferously opposed it. What was discussed is that discipline does not necessarily require an environment of fear. In fact, fear of any kind, would be anti-thecal to learning. What Nilesh Pande remembers is not what he learnt out of fear, but out of encouragement.
The impartiality and lack of bias was another issue discussed. In some form or the other, it emerged as a fairly common undesirable trait. Even some good teachers were mentioned to have this weakness. Where do these biases emerge? And how do these unconsciously creep in ? The overall social conditioning and culture of competition perhaps lead to this.
