Policies for Teacher Growth: A Look at In-Service Training and Education

A nation’s education system is only as strong as the teachers who power it. Yet for decades, teacher training in India has been a patchwork of well-intentioned policies, underfunded institutions, and programmes that rarely reached the classroom in any meaningful way. The good news? A clearer framework has been taking shape – one that spans national regulations, centrally sponsored schemes, and structured in-service training. Understanding this framework is essential for anyone serious about improving school education in India.

National policies for teacher training 🔗

The regulatory backbone of teacher training in India is the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Established as an advisory body in 1973 and given statutory authority under the NCTE Act, 1993, the Council was created to bring order to what had previously been an unregulated landscape of teacher training institutions. Before the NCTE had formal powers, standards varied wildly across institutions and states.

The mandate given to the NCTE is broad, covering the entire range of teacher education programmes – including research and training for pre-primary, primary, secondary, and senior secondary stages in schools, as well as non-formal, part-time, adult, and distance education. To fulfil this mandate, the NCTE lays down norms for specific categories of courses and training, including minimum eligibility criteria for admission, selection methods, course duration, curriculum content, and mode of delivery. It also sets guidelines regarding tuition and other fees chargeable by recognised institutions.

More recently, the NCTE has aligned its regulatory work with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Under NEP 2020, NCTE will ensure through regulations that all B.Ed. programmes include training in both time-tested and the most recent techniques in pedagogy – covering foundational literacy and numeracy, multilevel teaching and evaluation, teaching children with disabilities, the use of educational technology, and learner-centred and collaborative learning approaches.

Structured training in KVS and NVS 🔗

Two of the most structured examples of teacher training under national policy are found in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) – both of which operate under the Ministry of Education and run well-defined in-service programmes for their teaching staff.

KVS has five Zonal Institutes of Education and Training (ZIETs) – in Gwalior, Mumbai, Mysore, Chandigarh, and Bhubaneswar – and runs a structured pattern of teacher training that includes orientation courses (3 days), induction courses for newly recruited staff (7-10 days), in-service courses (21-22 days), refresher courses (3-5 days), and short workshops (1-5 days). In addition, as per the NEP 2020 mandate, 50 hours of CPD is mandatory for all KVS teachers every year, irrespective of their length of service, with completion verified through the KVS Samagam portal.

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), which operates 653 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) across India – co-educational, fully residential schools located mainly in rural areas – expects teachers not only to fulfil regular teaching duties but also house mastership, remedial and supervisory studies, and the organisation of co-curricular activities, all of which are assessed during the period of probation. Both KVS and NVS function as models of structured, policy-backed teacher development within the central government school system.

Centrally sponsored schemes: Building the institutional base 🔗

The most significant policy initiative aimed at building institutional infrastructure for teacher training is the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Restructuring and Reorganization of Teacher Education. Launched in 1987 as envisaged in the National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986, the scheme was designed to create a sound institutional infrastructure for pre-service and in-service training of elementary and secondary school teachers, and to provide academic resource support to schools.

In its original form, the scheme had five components: setting up 400 District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs); strengthening 250 Colleges of Teacher Education (CTEs) and developing 50 of them as Institutes of Advanced Studies in Education (IASEs); strengthening State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs); orienting five lakh school teachers every year; and establishing and strengthening Departments of Education in universities.

The scheme was continued with modifications through the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Five Year Plan periods. From 2018, it was subsumed into the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.

District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) 🔗

DIETs are arguably the most important ground-level institution in India’s teacher development ecosystem. Pursuant to the provisions of the NPE on teacher education, the Centrally Sponsored Scheme was approved in October 1987, and the establishment of DIETs was one of its five components. Draft guidelines for implementing the DIET component were circulated to states in October 1987.

The National Policy of Education, 1986 and Programme of Action, 1992 led to the establishment of DIETs throughout India, with the mandate of undertaking extensive teacher education programmes – both in-service and pre-service – along with several other entrusted activities. Their envisioned role was broad: from preparing district-specific teaching materials and developing district plans for universalisation of elementary education, to building the capacity of practising teachers at the block level.

However, the reality on the ground has been mixed. During the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), DIETs initially played an important role in providing orientation to teachers and officers at the block and district level. But with the establishment of Block Resource Centres across all districts, the basic purpose of establishing DIETs was diluted, and they became largely institutions engaged in B.Ed. and Diploma in Elementary Education programmes.

Institutes of Advanced Study in Education (IASEs) 🔗

At the upper tier of the Teacher Education Scheme sit the Institutes of Advanced Study in Education (IASEs). These were conceived to offer higher-level academic support and research capacity in teacher education. Under the scheme, recurring and non-recurring Central assistance is provided to State Governments as resource support to DIETs, CTEs, IASEs, and SCERTs. The revised scheme also includes the strengthening of existing IASEs and the upgrading of Departments of Education in universities to IASE status, ensuring that academic excellence in teacher preparation is not limited to the district level alone.

In-service education and training (INSET): Building teacher capacity 🔗

In-service education and training – commonly referred to as INSET – is the mechanism through which practising teachers are expected to update their skills, knowledge, and pedagogy throughout their careers. It sits at the heart of any sustainable teacher development system.

There are two types of teacher education programmes in India: pre-service and in-service. CPD of teachers in India is generally understood as similar to INSET programmes. The key difference is that CPD includes all types of learning experiences – formal or informal – that enable an individual to upgrade their knowledge and skills, while INSET focuses specifically on imparting particular professional skills to teachers as required.

In India, CPD has traditionally been equated with in-service teacher education and training (INSET), which often consists of short-term, isolated training events. While CPD is recognised as a lifelong, multifaceted process of growth, previous educational policies primarily focused on INSET, limiting the scope of professional development opportunities for teachers.

NEP 2020 has attempted to address this limitation by reshaping the framework. NEP 2020 recommended that teachers be offered continuous opportunities for professional enhancement through different modes – including international, national, state, regional, and local workshops and seminars. Every teacher is expected to actively participate and spend at least 50 hours in CPD activities every year, based on their own areas of interest.

Key digital platforms have been deployed to make INSET more accessible and scalable. Under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, provisions have been made to strengthen DIETs and Block Institutes of Teacher Education (BITEs) for pre-service and in-service training through platforms like NISHTHA, DIKSHA, and SWAYAM. NISHTHA (National Initiative for School Heads’ and Teachers’ Holistic Advancement) is specifically designed to train both teachers and school heads to improve teaching quality and curriculum implementation, starting from the elementary level.

Gaps and recommendations 🔗

Despite the scale and intent of these frameworks, significant gaps persist – both in policy design and implementation.

Key shortcomings 🔗

The current teacher education system in India faces significant challenges, including limited access to quality professional development and practical training for both pre-service and in-service teachers. The NEP 2020 also recognises a significant gap between the capacity for teacher training and the demand for qualified teachers, particularly in the eastern regions of India.

While the NEP’s recommendation for 50 hours of annual CPD is a step in the right direction, it fails to take into account multiple systemic realities and past failures of in-service teacher training. Reaching more than 10 lakh teachers through expert-led, needs-based training is less feasible at scale, and the methods for teacher professional development have remained largely traditional.

With 92% of Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) privately run, substandard institutions continue to persist, despite NEP’s call for closure of non-compliant ones by 2030. There are also state-level disparities: northern states lag in TEI infrastructure and teacher recruitment, while southern states show better compliance overall.

Teachers in rural areas face additional barriers – poor internet connectivity, inadequate facilities, and a lack of qualified trainers – making it difficult to access digital CPD platforms that are increasingly central to training delivery. Furthermore, traditional classroom practices such as rote learning and lecture-based instruction are deeply ingrained, making it difficult for some teachers to transition to competency-based and student-centric approaches even after training.

Recommendations for sustainable teacher development 🔗

Addressing these challenges requires more than adding more training hours. Creating a central or state-level credit system for teacher professional development is a pathway worth exploring. Such a system should begin with a policy-level definition of credits – how they can be earned, and what they are worth to teachers in terms of career advancement. Linking CPD participation to promotions, salary increments, and performance appraisals can make professional development a genuine career incentive rather than a box-ticking exercise.

The National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST), developed by NCTE, sets out competence levels for Indian teachers across a career – from Trainee to Qualified to Lead Teacher – and includes measurement criteria for regular performance reviews at different career levels, tied to promotions and salary. Aligning INSET and CPD activities with these standards would create coherence between training programmes and career outcomes.

On the institutional side, DIETs need a renewed mandate and sustained funding so they can return to their original purpose as district-level academic resource centres – not just examination-oriented diploma mills. Strengthening SCERT capacity at the state level and enabling IASEs to produce relevant, context-specific research would create an ecosystem where policy reform and classroom practice genuinely support each other.

Technology must also be deployed more strategically. Platforms like DIKSHA and SWAYAM hold real promise for scaling professional development – but only if accompanied by investment in digital infrastructure in rural and semi-urban schools, where the need is greatest.

What do you think? Given that DIETs were envisioned as district-level academic resource centres but have largely become pre-service training institutions, what structural changes would restore their original purpose? And with NEP 2020 mandating 50 hours of CPD annually for every teacher, do you think the current ecosystem of training platforms and institutions is equipped to make that requirement meaningful across all states?

References

1. https://dsel.education.gov.in/en/ncte
2. https://www.education.gov.in/shikshakparv/docs/background_note_teacher_education.pdf
3. https://diksha.gov.in
4. https://swayam.gov.in