For one, agitations are usually launched by employees against their employers. But in this case, the employer, ie, school and college managements, have in no way been involved in the agitation, which is aimed solely at the government.

But the government has at least shown some indication that it considers managements as employers since it has placed the onus of deducting the teachers' salaries for the strike period on managements. It is a different matter that the government failed to take managements into confidence while negotiating the teachers' demands. One hopes the government is serious this time.

Furthermore, the identity crisis thrust upon junior college teachers is another glaringexample of how misconceptions have led to the inept handling of the agitation. In 1975-76, when Maharashtra decided to delink Stds XI and XII from schools and colleges respectively and introduce the 10+2+3 pattern in keeping with the other states, it called these two classes the Higher Secondary Certificate level – or the junior college. It did this by delinking Std XI from the Secondary School Certificate pattern while the first and intermediate levels were dissociated from senior colleges, with Stds XI and XII called plus-two.

Confusion arose thereafter, when managements as well as senior college teachers, who were rendered surplus with the closure of the first and intermediate years, agitated against the system. The government therefore decided to permit both schools and senior colleges to run Stds XI and XII.But the cardinal blunder was to ignore the fact that the atmosphere and service conditions of teachers in schools vis-a-vis colleges are altogether different. Hence, while junior college teachershave been demanding pay revisions vis-a-vis their senior college counterparts, the government considers them more as an extension of the high school establishment.Junior college teachers, though, feel they are better informed than senior college teachers as they require professional qualification for recruitment. They also cite their workload, salary and service conditions as other examples. However, when it comes to workload, the government conveniently expects them to work like degree college teachers as they teach a class strength of 100-odd students.

The recommendations with regard to existing scales (see tables I and II) are clearly due to discrepancies in existing scales. Higher secondary teachers in Maharashtra began to enjoy a higher scales after the 1990 agitation. The scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission for them was only Rs 2,000-3,200. After the agitation, it was enhanced to Rs 2,000-3,500 and the senior scale, Rs 2,500-4,000. Consequently, the Fifth Pay Commission made itscalculations accordingly.

However, in the process, other school employees were ignored. For instance, the salary of a headmaster (junior college) remained stagnant at Rs 2,000-3,500 and senior scale Rs 2,200-4,000.

Another example of government ignorance was in the payment of allowance to headmasters and vice-principals. A teacher (even junior college) when promoted to the post of headmaster receives an allowance of Rs 100 per month but Rs 200 per month in case of vice-principals. After many representations since 1990, the government finally equated the headmaster's scale to that of junior college teachers.

After the 1990 agitation, the single-tier scale recommended for junior college teachers by the Fourth Pay Commission was changed to a two-tier scale and consequently the selection scale was not recommended. Junior college teachers are now once again demanding a three-tier scale with an initial pay of Rs 8,000-13,500 after eight years of service, a senior scale of Rs 10,000-15,200 after six years anda selection grade of Rs 12,000-18,000.

This is much higher than what secondary school teachers as well as headmasters get. In fact, the difference between trained undergraduate teachers and trained graduate teachers should be the same as that between trained graduate teachers and junior college teachers. Even the salary of D Ed (junior college of education) teachers is same as that of junior college teachers. Therefore, if the junior college teachers' demands are to be negotiated, those of D Ed teachers and headmasters, among others, should be revised as well. The teachers' other demands also arise out of the government's indecisiveness. The very idea of `surplus' teachers is itself peculiar and does not merit consideration. The logic behind `surplus' teachers is bad in law. How can an employer be compelled to employ a teacher of another establishment which is partially or completely closed for reasons beyond the control of the new management? The demand that such teachers be paid their full salaries tilltheir workload is reduced to zero is ridiculous.

Also, the demand of junior college teachers that they should not take Std XI classes while evaluating Std XII examination papers is beyond comprehension. In any case, their workload is just about 250 clock hours per academic year compared to secondary school teachers who log 350 clock hours. Hence, junior college teachers should not claim more money as if they put in more work. It is time the government revised the school education policy, especially that which relates to administration. It should give managements a free hand to administer while retaining a hold over syllabus only. Before that, the government must clarify the status of junior college teachers.