Navigating Policy Decisions in Educational Operations

Every improvement we see in a classroom – a better-trained teacher, a more relevant textbook, a more responsive school administration – can usually be traced back to a decision made at the policy level. In India’s education system, these policy decisions don’t just influence what happens in schools; they actually determine the very structures that exist to support those schools. The establishment of institutions like District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs), Colleges of Teacher Education (CTEs), and Institutes of Advanced Study in Education (IASEs) is a clear example of how political and policy decisions directly shape educational operations – from the district level all the way up to advanced research.

The link between policy decisions and educational structures 🔗

Educational systems don’t emerge in a vacuum. The institutions that train teachers, develop curricula, and support schools are all products of deliberate policy choices made by governments. In India, this connection is especially visible. The National Policy on Education (NPE) of 1986, introduced under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s government, was a landmark political decision that fundamentally reshaped how education was organized and delivered across the country. The policy called for special emphasis on removing educational disparities and equalizing opportunities – particularly for women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes.

One of the most significant operational outcomes of this policy was the recognition that quality education could not be achieved without quality teacher training – and that this training needed to reach every district, not just major cities. This insight drove the creation of a new tier of educational institutions specifically designed to operate at the district level, bridging the gap between national policy and ground-level implementation.

DIETs: Decentralizing teacher training to the district 🔗

District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) were envisioned in the NPE 1986 and created by the Government of India in the early 1990s to strengthen elementary education and support the decentralization of education to the district level. They were conceived as a district-level tier in the support system – one that would be closer to the ground, and therefore more responsive to local problems and needs.

Before DIETs existed, India had national and state-level institutions like NCERT and SCERTs, but there was no dedicated structure at the district level to address the immediate and specific training needs of primary school teachers. India’s enormous geographic scale and the rapid growth of elementary schools and adult education centres created an urgent demand for district-level institutions – and DIETs were the policy response to that demand.

What DIETs actually do 🔗

DIETs are not simply training centres. Their mandate is considerably broader. The Ministry of Education’s concept note on DIETs outlines their core activities as: pre-service teacher education, in-service teacher education, direct field interventions and school improvement, studies on education, annual academic planning and review, and resource/material development.

A particularly important function is educational research. DIETs are expected to organize district-level research on enrollment, retention, achievement, gender parity, and dropout rates – and to use that research to inform district planning. They are also tasked with facilitating collaborative action research so that practicing teachers can address classroom-level problems using evidence. In this way, DIETs don’t just train teachers in generic skills – they generate knowledge that is specific to the educational challenges of their own district.

Additionally, DIETs maintain institutional linkages with schools, school complexes, local NGOs, universities, IASEs, and government programmes. They serve as a critical link between central educational policies and the local implementation of those policies – which is precisely why the political decision to establish them was so consequential.

Scale and current status 🔗

As of 2023-24, there are 748 districts in the country; DIETs have been sanctioned in 672 of them, with 613 currently functional. While the coverage is extensive, challenges remain – including a nearly 52% vacancy rate for academic positions nationally, inadequate infrastructure in many locations, and insufficient integration of modern technology.

CTEs: Strengthening secondary teacher education 🔗

While DIETs focused on primary and elementary education, the NPE 1986 also identified a significant gap in the training of secondary school teachers. The solution was to upgrade existing Secondary Teacher Education Institutes (STEIs) into a new category of institution: Colleges of Teacher Education (CTEs).

The Government of India’s centrally sponsored scheme for teacher education called for strengthening secondary teacher education institutions into CTEs to provide both pre-service and in-service education in the secondary education sector. This was a targeted policy intervention – recognizing that secondary-level teaching required specialized pedagogical preparation that existing institutions were not equipped to deliver consistently.

CTEs were established to provide pre-service and in-service training to secondary school teachers, with a focus on enhancing both pedagogical skills and subject knowledge. They were set up by upgrading Government Colleges of Education that already had adequate standing and resources, giving them a renewed mandate and additional central support.

The relationship between CTEs and DIETs is by design complementary. DIETs operate at the primary/elementary level, while CTEs serve the secondary level – together forming a more complete teacher education system that covers the full spectrum of school education.

IASEs: Creating centres of excellence and research 🔗

Among the most intellectually ambitious outcomes of the NPE 1986 was the creation of Institutes of Advanced Study in Education (IASEs). The NPE 1986 stated explicitly that teacher education is a continuous process and that its pre-service and in-service components are inseparable. This philosophical position led to the recommendation that a select number of upgraded STEIs should be designated as IASEs – institutions with an additional mandate of developing into centres of excellence and research in education.

The policy envisioned that approximately 250 existing STEIs of good reputation would be financially assisted to better fulfil their roles, and that 50 of these would be elevated to IASE status. The remaining upgraded institutions would function as CTEs. This tiered approach – with IASEs at the top, CTEs in the middle, and DIETs at the district level – was a deliberate policy architecture designed to create a coherent, multi-level teacher education system.

IASEs are expected to offer specialized programmes for teacher educators, support curriculum development, conduct advanced research in education, and contribute to educational administration and policy. In doing so, they occupy a unique space: they are not just training institutions but knowledge-generating bodies that can influence educational practice and policy at a higher level.

How policy continues to evolve these institutions 🔗

The establishment of DIETs, CTEs, and IASEs was not a one-time political act – it has been an ongoing process of policy reinforcement and revision. The Government of India’s NPE, as modified in 1992, continued to support the scheme, and subsequent Five Year Plans included provisions for the completion, strengthening, and expansion of these institutions.

A major policy shift came in 2018 with Samagra Shiksha – an integrated school education scheme that subsumed the earlier Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Teacher Education. Under Samagra Shiksha, DIETs are envisaged as strong district institutions that support teachers across all levels of school education – not just elementary. SCERTs and DIETs play a crucial role in Samagra Shiksha, and financial assistance is provided to states and union territories to reinforce both.

The National Education Policy 2020 further expanded the envisioned role of DIETs, calling for them to cover secondary schools in addition to elementary schools – in line with the new 5+3+3+4 schooling structure. NEP 2020 also directed SCERT to lead a change management process to reinvigorate CRCs, BRCs, and DIETs and develop them into vibrant institutes of excellence within three years. This means DIETs, IASEs, and their supporting structures remain active subjects of policy reform – not static institutions.

Why political decision-making matters for education quality 🔗

The story of DIETs, CTEs, and IASEs illustrates a broader principle: the quality and accessibility of education are not accidental outcomes – they are the result of conscious, deliberate decisions made at the political and administrative level. When the government decided in 1986 to decentralize teacher training, it was choosing to prioritize district-level responsiveness over centralized uniformity. When it decided to upgrade certain STEIs to IASE status, it was choosing to invest in research and excellence within the teacher education ecosystem. Each of these choices had direct operational consequences – determining which institutions exist, where they are located, what mandate they carry, and how much funding they receive.

This is also why policy gaps matter. While pre-service programmes like B.Ed and D.El.Ed have become the dominant function of many DIETs, their original mandate of in-service teacher training and planning support has increasingly shifted to BRCs and CRCs. This drift from the original intent of the policy is itself a reminder that educational structures only perform their intended function when supported by sustained political will, adequate funding, and clear accountability mechanisms.

The broader lesson is this: sound educational operations require sound educational policy – and sound policy requires political leaders and decision-makers who understand what education systems actually need at the ground level. The gap between a well-written policy document and a fully functional DIET or CTE on the ground is bridged not by paperwork, but by consistent implementation, resourcing, and monitoring.

What do you think? Given that nearly half of all academic positions in DIETs across India remain vacant, what does this suggest about the gap between policy intent and operational reality? And if institutions like IASEs are meant to be centres of research and excellence, what would it take for them to meaningfully influence classroom practice at the district level?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy_on_Education
2. https://dsel.education.gov.in/sites/default/files/guidelines/Concept_Note_DIET.pdf
3. https://wikieducator.org/Diet_roles_and_functions
4. https://educationforallinindia.com/district-institute-of-educational-training-diets/
5. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/npe.pdf
6. https://testbook.com/question-answer/the-national-policy-on-education-npe-1986-recomm–64323472328b6108b8b93c10
7. https://kupdf.net/download/role-and-functions-brc-diet-cte-iase-dsert-role-and-functions-of-brc-block-resource-centres_59e861a808bbc54946e65604_pdf
8. https://www.education.gov.in/en/national-policy-education-1986-modified-1992
9. https://dsel.education.gov.in/en/scheme/samagra-shiksha
10. https://www.financialexpress.com/jobs-career/education-samagra-shiksha-revitalising-education-in-alignment-with-nep-2020-for-inclusive-learning-3327741/
11. https://educationforallinindia.com/reimagining-the-role-of-diets-in-the-context-of-samagra-shiksha-and-nep-2020/