This article comes as my take after I read an article on a popular Skill Development and News aggregator Platform on Graduate Employability. The graduate unemployability crisis has a hidden root cause. While we focus on hardware of education, we keep ignoring the human-ware. Shiny campuses and high-speed Wi-Fi mean nothing if the person at the front of the room is disconnected from the modern world. We are producing lakhs of graduates who aren’t job-ready because you cannot inspire excellence if you haven’t lived it.
Infrastucture Remain in OEM Packing Until it is Scrapped PC: Gemini
In many Indian colleges, teaching is a fallback, not a choice. Faculty often teach subjects like cloud computing or digital marketing without having spent a single day in a tech firm. It’s like trying to teach someone to swim using a textbook in a dry room. No matter how modern the syllabus, a teacher just reading PowerPoint slides makes employability a distant dream.
Bridging the Gap: A Practical Roadmap
To fix the system, we must redefine job-description and titles of a Guru in modern times:
To revitalize the educational landscape, we must bridge the gap between ivory towers and real world. This begins by democratizing expertise through Professor of Practice model, rather than limiting industry veterans to elite institutions like IITs, we should bring those with two decades of on-the-ground experience into every Tier-1, Tier-2 and Tier-3 colleges.
To keep classroom knowledge from stagnating, Industry Sabbaticals should become a standard requirement. Teachers need to immerse themselves in corporate environments for several months every few years, absorbing latest technical tools and high-stakes hustle of modern workspaces.
However, systemic change requires Incentivizing Quality. Teaching must be transformed into a financially lucrative and socially prestigious career path, one that actively competes for the attention of top-tier engineers and managers.
Finally, classroom experience itself must evolve. Faculty training should prioritize Facilitation over Rote Learning, shifting instructor’s role from a sage on stage who merely finishes a syllabus to a guide on the side who masters art of sparking deep, critical discussion.
The Mindset Shift
Pouring capital into high-end hardware and sprawling glass campuses is a superficial remedy for a deep-seated educational crisis. Without a foundation of exceptional teaching, these assets are little more than expensive set dressing. It is a classic case of White Elephant Syndrome, institutions invest crores in advanced machinery primarily to dazzle regulators and parents. Yet, since faculty often lacks practical expertise to integrate this tech into a real-world context, equipment ends up mothballed under plastic sheets, serving as a monument to wasted potential.
The gap between intent and impact is most visible in curriculum. Updating a syllabus is not merely a clerical exercise, it is about bringing those subjects to life and should be an art form. In the hands of an uninspired educator, even most modern curriculum remains new wine in a very old bottle. This stems from a fundamental misallocation of resources. Indian institutions consistently over-index on physical infrastructure because it is visible, marketable, and easy to quantify. Meanwhile, soft infrastructure, rigorous teacher training and competitive salaries, is neglected simply because its value is harder to capture in a brochure.
Lost Navigator PC: Gemini
Finally Syllabus is a map, ship the infrastructure, but the teacher is the navigator. If the navigator is lost, however accurate the map, ship will never reach the port of employment, no matter how shiny the vessel.
This is in continuation with my earlier article Degree is the Usher at the Door, Only Skill keeps you in the Room which related to huge amount of unspent funds budgeted for Skill Development in India. You can click on the link to read the same. Thanks to Ms Sheila for capturing the entire 4 hour talk delivered yesterday for a particular Skill Development Institution and sharing it with me. The content is mostly unedited and shared directly. This part was focussed on Remedies to the problem. Here we go…
While the government focuses on outlay (money) and enrollment (numbers), the quality of delivery—the actual human interaction between trainer and student—is where the system often collapses. I call these factors the Silent Killers of the Indian skilling ecosystem.
A sharp look at the structural decay that is described above and how it’s being (or not being) addressed:
In many ITIs and other skill training centers, instructors are permanent employees or long-term staff who haven’t stepped onto a factory floor in 10–15 years. They are teaching Industry 2.0 concepts (even that, theoretical) to a generation that needs to work in Industry 4.0. A Certified Trainer is often just someone who passed a 10-day Training of Trainers (ToT) program. As noted earlier, they may have the certificate, but they lack the muscle memory of the trade. Author suggests to strongly push for Dual System of Training (DST) and Flexi-MoUs, where industry experts are invited to teach, and trainers are sent back to factories for refresher stints.
Cannot Teach Industry 4.0 with Industry 2.0 Theory PC: Gemini
It would be incomplete if we don’t address the elephant in the room. The Leadership with Topline vs. Pedagogy approach
Many private Training Institutions operate like factories. Their Topline is the number of enrollments they can claim fees for or for government subsidies; their Bottom line is the cost-cutting on equipment and low trainer salaries. As a result, Training becomes a rote exercise for compliance rather than an educational one. If the leadership doesn’t understand pedagogy (the how of teaching), they view simulators and modern labs as unnecessary expenses rather than essential tools.
Though The NCVET (National Council for Vocational Education and Training) has started de-linking and de-affiliating thousands of non-performing affiliated centers (over 400 ITIs recently), there is a long way to go in attaining targeted results. Pertinent to note here that even NCVET also is a body of academics from the existing system who refuse to see beyond the academic box.
Coming to the Assessors, the other important cog in the wheel, most often the person training and the person assessing were often “friendly” to a detrimental level. While being friendly is a great characteristic to have in a training context, I am emphasizing this trait leading to inflated pass percentages that didn’t reflect actual skill. Same issue of lack of industrial exposure persists with Assessors too. In my personal experience, have witnessed assessors coming in to assess trainees who underwent high precision manufacturing and assessor who was seeing a CNC for the first time and had no clue about what the trainees were doing. He had no abilities to create real assessment criteria (like tampering the code and getting trainee to fix it). In the end, it was easy to steam roll him into “submission” Unless assessor have the ability to ensure that a student can actually do what the certificate says, this again is an exercise in futility.
In the Indian community, a Guru is traditionally respected, but in skilling, they are often underpaid and undervalued. Until the Trainer is treated with the same prestige as a Professor, the quality will remain a detail that everyone ignores.
Here is a Pedagogy-First model designed to ensure that a skilling institute transforms from a certificate factory to a center of excellence. This addresses the issue by forcing leadership to value the craft as much as the cash flow.
A blueprint for pedagogical excellence begins with shattering the stale trainer syndrome. To keep technical expertise sharp, institutes must move away from static, lifetime roles. This starts with Mandatory Sabbaticals, requiring every trainer to spend thirty days every two years on a live industry floor to refresh their technical muscle memory. This is bolstered by the 70:30 Rule, where thirty percent of curriculum delivery is handed over to active visiting practitioners. By bringing current shop-floor language into the classroom, the institute ensures that students aren’t learning yesterday’s news. To drive this home, trainer incentives should be decoupled from seniority and instead linked directly to the placement retention rates of their graduates.
The heart of this model lies in Radical Pedagogy, summarized by the “Show, Don’t Tell” rule. Leadership must shift focus from PowerPoint decks to practical mastery, enforcing a strict 20:80 ratio—twenty percent theory and eighty percent hands-on workshop time. Assessment undergoes a similar revolution; written exams are replaced by Job Simulations. In this environment, a student does not pass by merely describing a motor; they pass by fixing a broken one under the pressure of a timer. Furthermore, peer-to-peer learning integrates leadership training into the technical grind, as senior batches mentor juniors to sharpen their communication and soft skills.
True institutional change, however, requires Leadership Accountability that looks beyond the balance sheet. Governance must treat financial health as a byproduct of quality, not cost-cutting. This means the Board of Directors must review Employer Satisfaction Scores with the same scrutiny as financial statements seriously. To prevent a disconnect from the ground reality, leadership should conduct Shadow Student Audits, spending one day a month in the labs to experience the quality of equipment and instruction firsthand. Financially, this commitment is solidified by legally earmarking some percent of annual revenue for equipment upgrades to stop obsolescence in its tracks. Finally, the system is secured by a rigorous Assessor Integrity Protocol. To eliminate the possibility of grace marks or bias, external assessors must have zero prior contact with training staff. Every final practical assessment is then backed by Video-Log Evidence, ensuring each skill was actually demonstrated and digitally archived for audit. Through these layers of industry immersion, practical obsession, and administrative transparency, an institute transforms from a mere school into a powerhouse of employability.
PC: Gemini
This approach would help an institute in more ways that one. Topline will naturally grow because the Brand Equity of their graduates will become the best marketing tool. When a Skill Certificate from a particular institute guarantees a Salary premium (higher starting salary compared to other graduates), the Aspirational Value takes care of itself.
Assessing veteran educators in technical fields requires a shift from “inspection” to “collaboration.” These teachers often possess deep institutional memory and hands-on expertise that a checklist can’t capture. One of the methodology to assess them while keeping their dignity and ego intact is to rename the Assessment. This is especially true when learning and information is everywhere in the modern times and does not necessarily need a campus.
As they say, choice of words matter. Terms like “Performance Review” or “Audit” are better avoided when dealing with Senior Trainers. Maybe calling it as “Knowledge Sharing Sessions” where the projection is that the assessment is a way for them to document their expertise for the next generation. Or call it “Strategic Benchmarking” where we position assessment as a high-level alignment with industry standards rather than a critique of their teaching style. Teachers in India are still revered and whatever is done has to be with this in mind. Even an imaginary negation of this reverence in public especially with students in audience, would definitely result in immense negative repercussions.
Teachers even today are a revered Figures, Respect that in all situations
In my experience as a trainee, then a trainer and manager of trainers, trainer of trainer, what really a great Trainer does in a class? It is not delivering domain subject; they go way beyond that. They are far more holistic than we can really imagine. When assessing teachers for 10-20 minutes, especially senior teachers observing their class and then offering criticism can be highly detrimental and often ineffective if not handled with great care and objectivity. Anyone would agree that when there is an observer watching over our shoulder, the entire classroom environment is altered. Teaching become unauthentic too, however senior they are there would be performance anxiety (deliver to expectation of assessors, not students anymore), lack of spontaneity (handy when a teacher faces an unexpected question, or even re-calibrate the pace based on engagement), In such scenario assessor would end up making wrong conclusion and may not be a reflection of a trainer’s everyday skill. To quote an equivalence an observation is just a snapshot, and not an entire movie. The trainer’s class is not disjoint set of topical delivery but a series of carefully woven & intricate yet contiguous sub-units (for e.g. it may be bang in the middle of a multi-period unit or even the end. When an assessor begins assessing at this, there is lack of context in terms of student learning, unit’s learning outcome or even the previous coverage. The assessment becomes superficial and criticism becomes non-constructive. It is like judging the entire movie based on a Screenshot.
A Screenshot is just a Screenshot, not an Entire Movie
Very often assessor’s style becomes the prism to judge performance of other Trainer. This lack of similarity in styles may not be necessarily pedagogically unsound. I use humour a lot even when teaching Electronics (especially Measurement systems need a lot of it else it works better than best sedative). And there is risk of confirmation bias too. Criticism was focussed on perceived flaws and not necessarily on measurable outcomes. Most importantly, the exercise would undermine allowable professional autonomy and even trust. It would definitely demoralise and result in loss of trust on the administration, whereas the expectation is that the processes foster growth.
A senior trainer faring well on measurable metrics validates them as trainers. Not my point there is no need to assess or improve. My emphasis on using objective metrics. To quote a real example during an assessment process: A senior trainer teaching well for over 10 years, when asked to rate herself on scale of 1 to 4 rated herself level 2 because she felt there is always scope of improvement and learning, was dissed with statements like, “”are you training being at level 2 and messed with students who need level 4“. This is where I differentiate between criticism and feedback. We need to establish a clear metrics that would help both sides in making life easier and better for every stakeholder.
Though not related to pedagogy I had an interesting argument on management style with Late Dr Reguraj of NTTF on our management styles. He was convinced when I said that if we were to interchange our styles, we will end up as a pathetic sideshow. To clarify It was being a democratic or autocratic leadership styles. I did not have the persona, experience, wisdom or bandwidth like him to lead for a autocratic leadership style which worked for him for nearly 6 decades (evident in the heights that the organisation reached)
Often in my experience a Peer-to-Peer Model has helped avoiding senior teachers feeling patronized if assessment is performed by resources (especially from HR or Administration which is most often the process in Indian Organisations. Problem is compounded if they are younger in age both physical and age in the organisation. One of the ways that we overcame this when I was working with a reputed University was to bring in External SMEs. They are more likely to accept feedback from someone they perceive as a true peer who understands the technical grind and not a HR or administration who has no skin in this game (as seen from the lenses of the Teacher being assessed). It is also true in case of an assessor from the domain irrespective of age but not acknowledged widely as an authority of the domain.
Focus on “Modernization” over “Competence”. Never question their fundamental knowledge. Instead, focus the assessment on how they adapt that knowledge to new tools. “Your grasp of Robotic Arm dynamics is undisputed. Let’s look at how we can integrate this new simulation software into your lab sessions.” This frames the gap as a technological shift, not a personal failure. If I were to suggest, there is no need to carry out an assessment of senior teachers focussing on technical or domain grounds. Focus rather on the pedagogical process and classroom management or engagement abilities. The basic assumption here is that the senior teacher’s domain expertise is a given (if not, he/she has no business to be in the role in the first place)
Adopting newer tools suitable to the times
Implement 360-Degree “Growth” Feedback. Instead of a top-down verdict, use a more holistic approach, start with self-appraisal first: This would let them lead giving a sense of ownership of the process. Seek suggestion on where they feel the department needs to go and what support they need to get there. Most important is how student impact is presented. There is no doubt that it has to be used but use it with care, filter it. In a tech training context, it is better to focus on clarity and Industry Readiness rather than Likability scores. Anyone would agree likability is actually trivial to a senior academic who is programmed to think that he is not here to win a Popularity contest.
Outcome can be drastically useful for all stakeholders if we drive the conversation towards how system at the end of the process would be a legacy that they leave behind for generations to come. Appeal to their role as mentors. Ask them to demonstrate their teaching methods so that the institution can “standardize their excellence.” Sit in their class to “learn their secrets” of student engagement. While doing this you get to see their performance, but they feel like they are being consulted for their wisdom.
Make it a Mentoring Knowledge Session
Some Tips based on My experience
Having made the point, it is a given that things need to keep pace and keep changing. A key cog in the VET space is the Trainer and getting them to get better, is a mandate. Factoring the Banyan equivalence (reverence), we also need to consider that while we used to value teachers for their vast domain knowledge, a student can Google a fact in seconds. We should assess senior teachers not on what they know, but on how they teach students to filter, verify, and apply what the web provides. It helps to think of them as a Strategist not a Sage, as a Curator of contextualiser of information, from being controller to facilitator of learning. A senior teacher’s value lies in teaching insights not delivering information. Therefore, their assessment should focus on their ability to build a student’s “learning muscles”—critical thinking, synthesis, and curiosity—rather than their ability to produce high scorers on a static test. Ascertain trainers are able to move beyond Syllabus compliance to Skill Architecting, helping students learn independently. I remember a couple of Teachers of my times – Mr Basudev Ganguly, Mr Chandrashekhar, Mr Vivek Nayak, Mr Anil Kumar in the VET space and Ms Usha Madhavan or Ms Prabha in my Primary schools. Looking back they were way ahead of times
Red-Line Phrases, Avoid these at any cost.
The data shows your performance is dipping.
Younger teachers are doing this better.
You need to change your old-school ways.
Green-Light Phrases. Try and use these
We want to document your ‘secret sauce’ for the department.
How can the institution support your vision for this lab?
Your experience is vital for our upcoming accreditation/audit.
When I was Principal in a reputed Technical Training School, I had an approach for my direct reportees where I start by acknowledging their years of service & also specific technical expertise. Generally I start with a “Soft-Landing” question like, “”Having seen the department evolve over the years, what is the biggest change you’ve noticed in the quality of students we are getting now?” This respects their tenure and allows them to vent about modern student challenges before I pivoted on to teaching methods. My approach to finding if the teacher was on top of the modern trends (without asking in so many words) to ask them, “If budget wasn’t an issue, what one piece of technology or lab equipment would you bring in to make your subject more hands-on for today’s industry?” This while being a feedback to act on, also reveals if they are keeping up with industry trends without me asking, “Do you know what’s new?”
To get them to a high and open up even more, I generally would explore in their own words which of their teaching modules creates the biggest ‘Aha!’ moment for the students? And nudge them to answer how can we help them to scale that impact” This approach focuses on their success & also allows us to suggest digitizing or modernizing that specific module.
It is obvious that Kaizens are not preserve of a manufacturing industry alone. There is always a better way to do things even in education and training field. With rapidlychanging technology scenario it is obvious there could be a definite skill gap. Instead of framing it as a personal gap we can shift it as one of Institutional gap when we ask questions like “With industry standards shifting toward things like [AI/Automation/Green Tech], where do you feel our current curriculum—or even our faculty support—needs a boost?”
As an ego massage and reinforcing it as a leader (Mentorship Feeling), and as an indicator of their teaching philopshopy nudge them to answer question like, ““The junior faculty often look to you for guidance. What is the one ‘golden rule’ of technical training you think they should never forget?” This works exceedingly well as we now seek their expertise, not test their expertise.
Meet in their Office – Instead of Summoning to Principal’s office
To summarise, shift the mindset from “I am checking your performance”, to “I am seeking your expertise to upgrade the department.” Avoid the Boss’s Office vibe. Meet over tea or in their cabin. Use terms like Strategic Vision, Legacy, Industry Alignment, and Institutional Pillar. Don’t dump raw student complaints. Translate them into Opportunities for Modernization. The core issue with most processes is its obsession with perfecting the past. Most working overtime to raise test scores, essentially getting better at a game that no longer matters. In the middle of a global shift, doubling down on outdated metrics isn’t progress—it’s a distraction. We need to stop polishing the old system and start reimagining the skills, literacies, and outcomes our children actually need to thrive today. Remember! Today’s students have not seen a world without Internet, notwithstanding the Digital Divide. The assessment process more often than not doesn’t factor the fact that use of technology to find answer is a norm today, not an exception except when they come to the campuses. Determine the readiness to address this, not based on assessors’ outdated understanding of who a perfect trainer is. Assessment should help the organisation decide, if a senior teacher is just a human textbook, in which case they are redundant. If they are a coach for the “learning skill,” they are indispensable.
Knowledge being a commodity is a click away today. Knowing things isn’t the goal, Learning how to learn is
