(i) The DIET has a major responsibility at the district level. Seamless coordination is required with District SSA, District RMSA, DEO, BRCs and CRCs to prioritize on academic issues, training requirements, teacher growth over the next few years.
(ii) The DIET plans should reflect speed of expansion of services without compromising on the quality. For example,if the in-service training has to be provided under RMSA (in the absence of CTE), the DIET should quickly identify resources which it could use in such a training rather than wait to develop it over a period of time. It could be government resources (like retired teachers) or private resources (private colleges in the district); it could also be resource persons from outside or a CTE which may be out of the jurisdiction.
(iii) The DIET plans should exhibit innovation not only in terms of academic plans but also operational zing those plans. Balancing time, resources and capacity is critical while planning.
(iv) The DIET Principal has the added responsibility of not only managing programs but also people. The team of the Principal and the faculty should function as one unit to deliver quality services. Therefore the Plan should articulate clearly as to how the functions would be divided across individuals or sub-teams. This would also instill ownership and accountability towards the desired goals. It would also be advisable that each sub-team should develop its own plan which gets integrated at the DIET level. It is preferable to have a “MECE approach” (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) i.e. though every sub-team is working exclusively on its plan; however when put together it becomes a collective and an exhaustive plan. The Principal as a manager has the responsibility to oversee the collectiveness and exhaustiveness of the plan.
(v) The planners should closely consult district and state level MIS systems to support their planning decisions. DISE and SeMIS are easily accessible. In addition, it would be advisable to conduct some pre-planning consultations at Block levels to incorporate field realities and ownership of teachers and officials. A pre-planning consultation at the district level would also be useful where the relevant CTE, IASE and representatives from SCERT, SSA, RMSA and DEO offices could also be involved. Sincere efforts should be made to involve the District Collector in the planning process.
(vi) Previous knowledge and experience should be actively used as a data-point. DIET may organize consultations with former Principals, faculty and other stakeholders in the district who had been associated with teacher education.
vii) The competency of the existing staff and faculty is of utmost importance and in order to develop the same, DIET must do an assessment of the strengths and weakness in the institution and of the people. This would help in designing and executing programs focused on its strengths. In case of an absence of certain skills, DIET may actively pursue to acquire such talent or additionally build the competency in the existing set of people by offering them time to pursue those skills, whether through distance learning programs or part-time courses. The plan should capture such an assessment.
(viii) In addition, the DIET planners should also carefully read the SCERT approach and methodology in this document as the planning of SCERT is significantly dependant on DIETs. Concepts of outlays versus outcomes, measurability, bottom-up approach are equally relevant to the DIETs as well.