NCTE not to insist on undertaking from institutions for the present

February 01, 2015 12:00 am | Updated 05:48 am IST - CHENNAI:

The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has submitted before the Madras High Court that its condition that teacher education institutions should undertake within 21 days that they would fulfil the council’s revised norms, would not be enforced during the pendency of a writ petition.

The norms related to infrastructural and instructional facilities, enhanced endowment and reserve fund, qualification of teaching staff, curriculum and implementation strategies in view of the changing duration/intake of programme offered in the institutions within the time frame allowed by the council.

Counsel for the NCTE made the submission when a writ petition challenging certain clauses of the NCTE (Recognition, norms and procedural regulations) 2014 came up for hearing before Justice T.S. Sivagnanam.

In the petition filed through counsel R.Suresh Kumar, the Tamil Nadu Self-Financing College of Education Management Association, represented by its secretary S.Vijayakumar, said that hitherto teacher education institutions were governed by the 2009 NCTE regulations.

The council had notified new regulations called the NCTE (Recognition, norms and procedural regulations) 2014 which came into force on December 1.

The latest regulations have introduced more provisions and modified the already existing ones. The council said the institutions should adhere to the new regulations, norms and standards for the educational programmes.

Following the notification, the NCTE said the institutions should submit an undertaking within 21 days that they would fulfil the revised norms.

The new regulations had introduced some drastic changes in respect of duration of some of the teacher education courses and the institutions’ minimum intake capacity.

The norms had been revised for the eligibility of an institution to conduct a teacher education programme in future. Some of the provisions in the new regulations were not only arbitrary, injurious and prejudicial to society, but also impracticable, irrational and illogical, the petitioner said.

The Judge posted the matter for further hearing on March 16.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.