Matching Fragments
Besides, the practice of teaching is to be undertaken as per the schedule given below:
SEMESTER-I
Micro Teaching 10 Lessons.
Teaching of Hindi-I 15 Lessons.
Teaching of Maths-I 15 Lessons.
SEMESTER-II
Teaching of EVS-I (Science) 15 Lessons.
Teaching of EVS-I (Social Science) 15 Lessons.
Teaching of Health & Phy. Education-I 5 Lessons.
Teaching of W.E.I 5 Lessons.
SEMESTER-III
Teaching of EVS-II (Science) 10 Lessons.
Teaching of EVS-II (Social Science) 10 Lessons.
Teaching of Art Education-I 5 Lessons.
Teaching of Work Ex.-II 5 Lessons.
Teaching of Health & Phy. Education-II 10 Lessons
40 Lessons.
SEMESTER-IV
Teaching of Hindi-II 16 Lessons.
Teaching of Mathematics-II 16 Lessons.
Teaching of Art. Education-II 8 Lessons.
40 Lessons
B.Ed. curriculum on the other hand comprises the following papers:
COURSE I MARKS
Besides ideas in Education Theory 100
COURSE II
Educational Psychology 100
COURSE III
Modern Indian Education 100
(A) Its development & recent history.
(B) Its organisation and practise.
(C) Health Education.
COURSE IV 100
Note: 25 marks in each of the papers I, II, III and V and 30 marks in paper IV are allotted for the sessional work done during the session.
10. It will thus be seen that whereas the ETE/JBT curriculum is framed in such a way that one single teacher is able to teach all the subjects to a particular class of students, in B.Ed. curriculum the emphasis is on the specialisation in two subjects. The ETE/JBT courses are designed specially keeping the children of classes I to V in mind which is not the case with B.Ed. curriculum. A primary teachers has to undergo teacher training in primary classes that is classes I to V whereas a B.Ed. degree holder is required to have teaching experience of secondary classes i.e. from VI to X. In the curriculum framework for quality teacher eduction framed by National Counsel for Teachers Education, an autonomous body, it has been clearly mentioned in Clause 2.7 that the curriculum for primary teacher has been formulated specially be enable the teachers to teach primary classes i.e. from I to V whereas in Clause 2.9 which deals with teachers education for secondary stage it has been observed that for teaching at the secondary level educational qualification which is most sought after is B.Ed. which in fact is meant for this stage alone. The subject--contents as well as teaching methodology is different for ETE diploma holder and B.Ed. degree holder. The teaching practice for primary teachers and secondary teachers is also of different duration and different levels. The two qualifications operate in different fields and at different levels. It will, therefore, be wrong to say that B.Ed. is a higher qualification than ETE/JBT in the same sense as B.A. is higher than intermediate. B.A. degree is considered to be higher than intermediate because for passing B.A. one has necessarily to pass intermediate but in order to obtain B.Ed. it is not necessary to pass ETE/JBT first. These two qualifications are specifically meant for different levels of students and there is no question of one being higher than the other.
11. Similarly question arose before High Court of Bombay in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., . Schedule B, Part I of the Recruitment Rules, prescribes D.Ed. as the requisite qualification for primary teachers, whereas Schedule B, Part II prescribes B.Ed. as the requisite qualification for higher secondary teachers. Question as to whether B.Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible for the post of primary teachers came up for decision in several cases. Some Division Benches of the High Court of Bombay took the view that B.Ed is higher qualification than D.Ed. and therefore B.Ed. degree holders are qualified/eligible to be appointed as primary teachers. But in the case of Nandani Arunkumar Kalaskar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 4644/98 another Division Bench took a contrary view and held that B.Ed is not the requisite qualification for primary teachers. Because of these conflicting views the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The main contention of the petitioners who were holding B.A. and B.Ed degrees was that they were having more than the requisite qualifications for being appointed as primary teacher because according to them D.Ed is only a diploma course in education which is inferior to B.Ed., a degree course. So according to them they were not only qualified but better qualified for the post of primary teachers. As against this, the contention of the respondents was that the D.Ed syllabus has been specifically designed to meet the requirement of teaching the students of primary school whereas B.Ed. is geared to meet the teaching needs of the students of secondary level. The respondents contended that in primary eduction integrated teaching approach has been accepted by the council and the D.Ed syllabus has been framed in such a way that a teacher holding this qualification is in a position to teach all the subjects that are taught in primary standard. The teaching method is also suitable to the students falling in the age group up to 14 years, specially considering their hostility towards school. It was contended by the respondents in that case that the syllabus of D.Ed contains special training programme on early childhood education and non-formal education etc and that the D.Ed. are taking to primary school for practical sessions. After considering the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, Full Bench held that B.Ed. is not the requisite qualification for the primary teachers and the syllabus of D.Ed is better suited for imparting education in primary school whereas the syllabus of the B.Ed is better suited for teaching higher secondary level. The Full Bench held that D.Ed, B.Ed. qualifications are to operate in separate and distinct fields and therefore there is no question of considering one qualification higher than the other. Therefore it is not possible to accept the argument that B.Ed degree is higher than the D.Ed which is a diploma course. Full Bench clearly held that for teaching primary standard D.Ed is the requisite qualification and the B.Ed. degree holder cannot be treated as equivalent thereto. This Full Bench decision speaks directly on the point before us. The question of the eligibility/suitability of candidates for being appointed as primary teachers is not to be answered on the basis of educational or academic achievements. A renowned Agro-Scientist need not necessarily be a good gardener. The suitability of the candidate for a particular job must depend on his education, training and experience with reference to that specific job. There must be a reasonable nexus between the qualification prescribed for a particular post and the object to be achieved viz; teaching primary classes and looking to the curriculum, teaching practice, training, etc. of ETE/JBT and B.Ed. candidates we think that the former qualifies the test of suitability/eligibility for primary teachers.
