The title says it all. Most members at the helm act more like FMCG sales executives badgering underlings about number of engagement and training sessions, its frequency, numbers of attendees, geography covered etc not so much about whether as a so called subject expert one has a comprehensive grasp of issues in subject, curriculum and pedagogy. Anxieties of numbers compel them to select members of indifferent academic credentials who are ok to run around in the hot sun behind indifferent teachers and educational bureaucracy pleading and cajoling them to attend Apf training sessions. But most of these members themselves are often innocent of most aspects of educational sociology and even current understanding of their subject domains. Like I said marketing is what counts here not learning, thinking or dialoguing. So in effect Apf seeks grassroot 'workers' and not 'thinkers' . people who like to equip themselves with better understanding of their domain where if they realize personal interaction with teachers and observing classes alone may not suffice and seek time spent on reading, training and discussing as inviolable will be deeply disappointed. Reading and learning is frownwd upon. There is hardly any comprehensive and sustained exposure and training sessions. The worthies who head this benighted organisation at district level, feel reading and members own capacity building is a waste of time. Training and exposure sessions even when held are sporadic and of indifferent quality. To be a critical thinking member is a no-no and Apf's understanding of work is framed in very proletarian terms. There will be long planning meetings, monthly meetings, weekly meetings and nothing concrete will emerge from them other than looking up lot of numbers and percentages on Excel sheets. practices and thinking from corporate-managerial world determines its character and work, not from sociology or educational theory and practice.