“Our best universities have, paradoxically, typically looked down their noses at education, as if it were intellectually inferior. The result is that the strongest students are often in colleges that have no interest in education, while the most inspiring professors aren’t working with students who want to teach. This means that comparatively weaker students in less intellectually rigorous programs are the ones preparing to become teachers.

So the first step is to get the best colleges to throw themselves into the fray. If education was a good enough topic for Plato, John Dewey and William James, it should be good enough for 21st-century college professors.”

The case in Pakistan is similar. Major public universities like Punjab University and Karachi University do not offer doctoral programs in education, while research universities like LUMS and Quaid-i-Azam University don’t even have programs in education. As a result, there is very little, if any, research on the challenges posed by poverty, malnutrition, parental illiteracy, different regional languages and customs, and, now, war and internal displacement on children’s educational needs and possible remedies.

However, to assume that this is simply a matter of tweaking curriculum of our B. Ed and M. Ed programs (which HEC has done in 2006) or initiating research on education is to miss the underlying problem. The underlying problem – perhaps one of the few commonalties between the education system in the US and Pakistan – is that of the basic paradigm; a paradigm that treats education as just another subject in humanities or social sciences which can be taught in a classroom setting through lectures on child development, pedagogy, and classroom assessment, etc.

Engel makes a compelling case for a fundamental change in how education programs are conceived. First, she argues that “future teachers should continue studying the subject they hope to teach, with outstanding professors. It makes no sense at all to stop studying the thing you want to teach at the very moment you begin to learn how.” In the context of Pakistan, this would require our elite universities to improve upon HEC’s recommended curriculum in education since it leaves little room for courses to enhance subject-expertise. In other words, it is simply not enough to teach a prospective Physics teacher a course in “Teaching Physics”; she should continue to learn physics and be inspired by it.

Next, Engel makes a particularly inspired recommendation: she argues that students in education programs “should learn their craft the way surgeon learns to operate: by intense supervision in real setting with expert mentors”. “Young teachers”, she continues, “like young doctors, should work side by side with skilled mentors, getting plenty of feedback, having plenty of opportunities to observe and taking on greater and greater responsibility as they improve”.

The key insight behind this proposal that we find inspiring is that it neither takes “good teaching” as a science that can be taught in a classroom environment, nor as an innate ability. It accepts the notion that teaching is a craft and that this craft, like surgery, can best be perfected through keen observation, hands-on practice and ‘close-loop’ mentoring. We believe that this is the true spirit that, unfortunately, is not recognized and repeated enough in discussions about teacher training programs.

Engel goes on to make other key suggestions. She argues that the benefits of this shift in paradigm can only be realized if universities make their respective education programs more selective and free of charge. This appears to be a prescription that is almost custom-made for Pakistan which is experiencing a private schooling boom of its own. If a university, through a selective and well-marketed education program, produces high quality graduates, schools (especially, private ones) will be pressured by parents to hire teachers from such programs. This will result in gainful employment of well-trained teachers and improved education for the students – a win-win situation.

Surely, implementing these ideas and bringing other innovative approaches to our education programs will require more resources. But, all of these are investments in human capital; investments that can have deep and far-reaching effects on our education system. The question, then, is: does our society value quality education enough to make these investments? Surely, this is not an argument for greater ‘quantity’ of education, which is a serious problem it is very own right – at 61% literacy, how could it not be? This is an argument for quality. And, more than that, it is an argument for taking a new look at the very profession of teaching – its possibilities and its responsibilities. Can we afford not to invest in our teachers?

The USAID Pakistan Mission Director Robert Wilson commented,

“We all recognized the great need for improving the skills and qualifications of new teachers in order for Pakistan’s overall education system to improve. We are committed to supporting Pakistan in its education reforms…notably, we plan to develop closer ties with Punjab province on education programs specifically, and on broader development issues, especially in southern Punjab.”

The scope of programs like this should also include school leadership, i.e., some training for principals and administrators on best practices and goals. Proactive leadership can induce and sustain quality in schools, whereas as stodgy administration will have a continual downward drag and can discourage enterprise on the part of motivated teachers.

In any case, this is an excellent initiative, and hopefully details of the program will be forthcoming.