Amendments to the Right to Education Bill 2008
Preliminary Remarks:
(i) These amendments address the text of February 2, 2008, of the Right to Education Bill circulated by the Government of India among the Ministries concerned before the Bill could be introduced in the Parliament. Since the Bill is still under consideration by the Government, it may be further revised. But the revisions are not likely to be many.
(ii) The amendments suggested here are not completely inclusive. Only essential amendments are suggested. It is assumed that once some of the basic amendments are accepted, consequential amendments would have to be made. There is no attempt here to suggest such consequential amendments.
(iii) There is also no attempt to suggest exact formulations of the amendments. Only the substance of the amendments to be made are indicated.
(iv) These amendments are confined to the text of the Right to Education Bill. Other issues relating to school education which are of great concern to many of us are not raised here. These include providing compulsory and free education to children in the age group 4 to 6, defining the term “children” to include those in the age group 15 to 18, commodification of education, privatisation of education, likely offer in the primary education sector in the ongoing negotiations on services, in WTO etc. These issues will have to be raised independently in other appropriate forums and contexts.
A. Non-negotiable amendments:
(1) Financial implications of the Bill:
There is no attempt in the Bill to calculate the financial implications
of ensuring the availability of the various components of free and compulsory education. Some norms and standards are specified in the schedule to the Bill but there is no effort to put any price tags to them. Unless the required financial resources are calculated and provision made in the Bill that the State shall provide them in a time bound framework, the time targets set out in the Bill are unlikely to be met, and free and compulsory education to the children in the age group 6 to 14 is unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future. It is, therefore, necessary to calculate the over-all financial implications of the Bill and submit to the Parliament a Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill.
Regarding financial resources, the assumption in the Bill is that the enhanced financial resources made available to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), including States’ contribution to it, will take care of the financial requirement. This assumption is not justified. To illustrate this point by one set of figures, it may be pointed out that the total resources for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan including the contribution of the State governments, in the 11th Five Year Plan is Rs.1,51,453 Crores. This comes to an annual resource allocation of a little above Rs.30,000 Crores. This is far short of approximately Rs.73,000 Crores per annum which was the estimate given by the Expert Group set up by the CABE Committee on the Right to Education Bill.
(2) Norms & Standards:
Norms and Standards are the most crucial requirement for ensuring the quality of and equality in school education. The norms and standards given in the Schedule to the Bill are grossly inadequate and skimpy. There are not only numerous omissions like norms regarding availability of school at a particular distance from the habitation of children, types of schools, students per school and per class room, school furniture, laboratories, medical facilities etc., but also a number of the norms are left to be prescribed by the government. This is in spite of the fact that these norms have been specified or prescribed in the recent past by a number of committees, commissions, and agencies of the Government of India. The Schedule, therefore, is a caricature of norms and standards for school education which are essential for ensuring its quality.
(3) Responsibility of Schools to provide free and compulsory education:
Section 17(1):
Different scales of responsibility have been assigned to different types of schools for providing free and compulsory education. The net result of this provision will be the perpetuation of different types of schools, some meant for privileged classes and others for the poorer classes. This violates both Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21A (Right to Education) of the Constitution. This Section should, therefore, be amended to state that “all schools shall provide free and compulsory education to the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years and in the manner specified in the Bill”. Points (i),(ii) and (iii) and the proviso under Section 17(1), should be deleted.
In this connection it may be emphasised that the Common School System is the most effective, if not the only, framework for universalising free and compulsory school education of an equitable quality within a specified period of time. The RTE Bill, therefore, must be rooted in the framework of CSS which must bring within its fold all schools, including private unaided schools, the so-called specified category schools etc.
(4) Exclusion of Non-aided private schools from the obligations under the Bill:
Unaided private schools are excluded from a large number of obligations
under the Bill. To give only a few examples, the provision relating to not permitting more than 10 percent vacancies of teachers (Page 24, Section 27(1); Accountability of Teachers (Page 25, Section 30); and Obligations to Constitute School Management Committees (Page 23, Section 25), do not apply to unaided private schools.
(5) Neighbourhood School:
The concept of “neighbourhood” is defined (Page 9, aa) in relation to a
child and not in relation to a school. This has the effect of exempting certain schools, mainly unaided private schools, from the responsibility of admitting all the children in the neighbourhood. Both the definition of “neighbourhood” as well as the operative paragraph relating to it (Page 12, Section 3(1)(i) ) should be amended to define “neighbourhood” in relation to a school. In the definition part, it should be stated “as prescribed by the competent authority for each school taking into account the need to optimise the socio-cultural diversity of the children” and in the operative part it should be provided that every school shall admit all the children in the age group 6-14, in the neighbourhood. Without this, the goal of compulsory education for these children is unlikely to be met.
(6) Responsibility of Local Authorities:
The Bill, on page 17, Section 13, spells out the responsibility of the Local
Authorities. To discharge these responsibilities, the Local Authorities require both capacity and devolution of finances. The provision regarding the devolution of finances is made in Section 11(2)(i) where it is stated that this will be in accordance with “such formula regarding sharing of cost - - - as the appropriate government may determine from time to time”.
It is difficult to know how long it will take to arrive at such a formula and whether there would at all be a proper devolution of finances to the Local Authorities. The provision made in the Panchayati Raj Act that the State Finance Commission would suggest the formula for the devolution of finances to the Local Authorities has been implemented by only a few States. State Finance Commissions have submitted their recommendations but no action on them have been taken by many States.
Moreover, Panchayats are still in a rudimentary state of evolution in a majority of the States. In one State, no Panchayat elections have been held. In several other States, there is only nominal devolution of authority to the Panchayats. In this context, the provision in the Bill relating to the responsibility of the Local Authorities is unlikely to be implemented in most States in the near future. Taking into account this reality on the ground, the responsibilities entrusted to Local Authorities should be given to the School Management Committees in cases where Local Authorities lack capability, empowerment or resources. Section 13 should, therefore, be amended accordingly.
(7) School Management Committees:
Page 23 Section 25
School Management Committee (SMC) is the critical link in the chain of institutions ensuring free and compulsory education of equitable quality to children. The provisions on SMC in Section 25 are utterly inadequate. The total membership of an SMC is not given. A very large SMC can become non-functional. Besides, there is no indication as to how the Chairperson and other office bearers of the SMC would be elected. In many States, local MLAs and M.Ps become Chairpersons of SMC in their ex-officio capacity. This lies at the root of several of the abuses to which the schools are subjected. There must be a clear cut provision that the Chairperson and the other office bearers must be elected by and from among the elected members of the SMC. Moreover, the functions of the SMC (Section 25(3) should be spelt out in greater detail. These functions will have to be considerably expanded particularly because in several States, the SMCs will be required to take over most of the functions that are assigned in the Bill to the Local Authorities.
(8) Language Policy:
Page 27, Section 32(2)(iii)
The provision in this Section on language is also utterly inadequate. It only states that the child’s “mother tongue” will be used as the “medium of instruction as far as possible, at least during the first five years of the elementary stage”. This clause does not define the word “mother tongue”. It has to be clarified that the “mother tongue” of a child can be other than Hindi (such as Bhojpuri, Maithali) in a Hindi speaking region, or other than Bengalee or Marathi in a Bengalee speaking or Marathi speaking region etc. Secondly, distinction has to be made between using language as a medium of instruction and teaching a language. Thirdly, a provision must be made in order to start implementing, at least from now onwards, the 3-language formula recommended by the Kothari Commission and in the 1986 National Education Policy and since then reiterated several times by the Government of India. The text in Annex-II to the Legislation on Common School System and Right to Education, recommended by the Common School System Commission, Bihar, provides a good basis for drafting a text on this subject for this Bill. Lastly, the question of choosing the language as a medium of instructions or teaching languages cannot be left to the discretion of the Government, as done in the Bill. It must be a clear-cut legal obligation. It is, therefore, necessary for the Bill to have a separate Annex, fully spelling out the language policy.
(9) Pre-Primary Education:
Page 15, Section 8
This Section is of far-reaching importance. There is a very strong view that the fundamental Right to Education should have been extended to at least two years of pre-primary education i.e. to the children in the age group if 4-6 years. There is no such provision in the Bill. This may be understandable because the Bill is designed to give effect to Article 21A, which excludes children below 6 from the Fundamental Right to Education. But, if pre-primary education is to be brought in this Bill, it has to be as a Fundamental Right and not as a Directive Policy. There is, therefore, no place for Section 8, as presently drafted, in the Bill. Provision for pre-primary education under this section is on a best endeavour basis as in the previous Article 45 of the Constitution. Secondly, the provision is applicable only when facilities for providing such education through the ICDS do not exist. The fact is that ICDS covers only a part of the population of the children in this age group, and the education component function of ICDS is discharged only perfunctorily. Section 8, therefore, is of little value and only a camouflage for not extending the Fundamental Right of Education to children in the age group 4 to 6.
(10) Monitoring of Right to Education:
Page 29, Sections 36 to 39
It is not desirable to have, as recommended in the Bill, the Commission for the Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, to monitor the Right to Education. The burden of monitoring the implementation of the Child Rights Act is really onerous which this Commission has only recently undertaken. The full discharge of this function will call for a sizeable expansion of its resources. The Commission will not be in a position to assume the additional burden of monitoring the Right to Education even with the augmentation of its resources that can be expected in the next few years. Besides, the members of the Commission have expertise in the area of child rights and the related fields. They are not necessarily best qualified or competent to deal with the subject of school education. In these conditions, if the monitoring of the implementation of the Right to Education Bill is entrusted to the Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, there is a real danger of the entire process of monitoring the Right to Education being sidelined.
Besides, Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights are yet to be established in several States. It may take many years to do so. The interim suggestion given in the Bill is that the State government may create a State-level authority to discharge the functions of monitoring at the level of the State. This will create a dual system of monitoring in the States and that between the Centre and the State.
It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to create a separate statutory body at the national level, and its counterparts at the State level, vested with the power to monitor the implementation of the Right to Education. Paragraphs 36 to 38 of the Bill would, therefore, require to be drastically amended.
(11) Penalty for Non-compliance:
Page 31, Section 41
The inclusion of this Section under the Chapter on the monitoring of the implementation of the Bill, detracts from the very significance of the Bill. The provision under Article 41 is based on the assumption that there would be violations of some of the most crucial provisions of the Bill i.e. those relating to child labour, screening procedures and capitation fees for admission, recognition of schools and application of norms and standards. The implementation of these provisions depends mainly on the political will of the State, its earmarking adequate resources and exercising control over the schools, particularly the private schools. Imposition of fines is the least effective way of ensuring compliance of these measures. As a matter of fact, it may provide to schools, particularly the private schools, the easy way out of paying fines and getting away with non-compliance of the key provisions of the Bill. This section should, therefore, be deleted.
(12) Teachers: – Service Terms & Conditions:
Section 28 of the Bill provides for pre-service training of teachers
and enabling those who are not qualified to acquire the necessary qualifications within a time limit। So far as other terms and conditions of the service of teachers are concerned, the Bill leaves it to the State Governments to lay down the rules and norms. This cannot be accepted. The service terms and conditions of teachers should have provided for the levels and scales of their salaries and allowances. This is absolutely essential because without motivated qualified teachers, it is not possible to deliver quality education. When the norms and standards recommended by most of the committees/expert groups and practised in government schools, clearly prescribe salaries and other service conditions for teachers, there is no reason why it should not be provided in this Bill.
(13) Teachers Training & Innovation:
At the end of Section 35 (2), it is stated that “teachers shall be
provided opportunities for peer interaction and encouraged to engage in innovation”। It is not clear as to what precise form these opportunities will take and how encouragement will be given for innovation. There are norms laid down for these purposes also, like establishment of teachers forums for peer interaction, the empowerment of this institution, stipends to teachers for research and further studies etc. This clause should, therefore, be enlarged to include detailed and specific norms for achieving the purpose mentioned in it.
(14) Teachers Grievances & Complaints of Citizens regarding Violation of the Provisions of the Bill:
The provision relating to the redressal of teachers grievances is in Section 31 and on citizens complaints regarding the violation of the provision of the Bill in Section 40(3). In neither case, the statutory Commission to be established under the Bill, has been given the standing responsibility for the hearing and disposal of grievances on citizens’ complaints. The relevant provision of the Bill only states that the Commission can take suo moto cognizance of the violation of the Bill. Instead, the Bill should have provided for the Commission being the final authority to hear cases of grievances or violation and dispose of such cases. These should include teachers grievances which are not settled up to the level of the State Government.
(15) Definition of “Working Child” and payment for the opportunity cost of forgoing child labour:
Page 11(tt)
The definition should include “children in bondage and those not sent to school because of their being obliged to take care of their siblings”.
In addition, the Bill should provide compensation to a household for the opportunity cost of foregoing child labour. The forms in which such a compensation should be paid is spelt out in the relevant section of the report of the Common School System Commission, Bihar.
B. Other Important Amendments:
(I) Definition of Free Education:
Page 7, (q)
As in other sections, in the definition of “free definition” also, the Bill leaves the matter vague and at the discretion of the government by using the words “as may be prescribed”। Most of the “other expenses” are very well known and they are charged in one form or the other even in a system of free education. Therefore, there is a need to spell out these expenses. This should include supply of text books, stationary, uniforms, mid-day meal, teaching aids, fees for tests, examinations and use of computers and other instruments, charges for such facilities as games, cultural or artistic performances, library and extra curricular activities etc.
(2) Specification of Schools for admission outside the neighbourhood:
There is a provision to this effect in Section 5(1) of the Bill. This
provision should be amended to state that where education up to the level of class VIII is not available, the local authority shall take action to upgrade the present school to that level within, say, a year or two, or build a new school up to class VIII, rather than saying that the prescribed authority would specify another school which may be for removed from the habitation of the child।
(3) Education of Equitable Quality:
It is stated in Section 6(4), page 14, that the State shall ensure that
“children in schools receive education of equitable quality”. This provision has no value unless the term “equitable quality” is defined or concretized. The only way this term can be concretized is through norms and standards. This Section of the Bill should, therefore, be reformulated to relate equitable quality to the norms and standards in the Schedule. As already stated, the Schedule itself should be drastically revised and expanded to include almost all the norms and standards which make for quality education.
(4) Prohibition of Deployment of Teachers for Non-educational purpose:
Section 23, page 22
The exception made in this Section for deployment for the decimal population census, election to Local Authorities, State Legislatures and Parliament can have a crippling effect on the provision of quality education to children. Some of these events, particularly elections, have now become too frequent. If teachers are deployed for these purposes there will be continuing disruption in teaching. Therefore, deployment for these purposes should also be prohibited. The only exception to be made should be for disaster relief, the duty for which should be equally applicable to teachers in private schools also.
(5) Rules relating to Grant of Recognition:
Page 20/21, Section 20(3)
At the end of this sub-section, some of the criteria to be taken into account for framing rules for recognition are mentioned. These criteria are fragmentary and incomplete. The sub-section should simply state that recognition should depend on the compliance with the norms and standards included in the Schedule of the Bill.
(6) Duties of Teachers:
Page 25, Section 29
In this Section, teachers are supposed to report on cases of non-compliance to parents or guardians or to SMC. This Section should have provided for first reporting to the Head Teacher.
(7) Freedom of Expression by the Child:
Section 32(2)(i)
In this sub-section, the exercise of the right of the child to express her views freely is qualified by the phrase “in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”। This qualification is unnecessary and undesirable as it can be made an excuse for effectively preventing a child from expressing her views. This phrase should be deleted.
(8) Maintenance of Pupil:Teacher Ratio:
It is specified in Section 26 that the concerned authority should ensure the
enforcement of the specified pupil:teacher ratio within six months from the commencement of the Bill। This seems unrealistic because ensuring the enforcement of the ratio may call for recruitment of the requisite number of teachers and their training. In another Section of the Bill, it is provided that teachers’ recruitment should be completed in five years. How it is then possible to ensure the enforcement of the ratio within six months?
(9) Not Serving in any School Other than the School of posting:
Section 26(2)
The intention behind this provision is good. But the way it is formulated may imply that a teacher may not serve in another school even on transfer. It is, therefore, necessary to add at the end of the sub-clause the phrase “except on transfer”.
---
Friday, August 29, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
नक्सलवाद के विस्तार पर प्लानिंग कमीशन की रिपोर्ट - Down To Earth
Down To Earth has written the following on the subject:
Land alienation, poverty amongst scheduled tribes and dalits and lack of access to basic forest resources have contributed to the growth of naxalism, says the Planning Commission. Its report, Development challenges in extremist affected areas, indicts Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh. The report also critiques sezs and the complete failure of instruments like the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
In 2006, the Planning Commission set up an expert group headed by D Bandopadhyay, a retired ias officer experienced in dealing with naxalites in West Bengal in the 1970s, to look into the phenomenon of naxalism. Its terms of reference included "identification of processes and causes contributing to continued tensions and alienation in the areas of unrest and discontent, such as widespread displacement, forest issues, insecured tenancies and other forms of exploitation like usury, land alienation, etc".
It also included "special measures to be taken for strengthening the implementation of pesa". The committee comprised Prakash Singh, former up dgp; Ajit Doval, former director of the Intelligence Bureau; B D Sharma, retired bureaucrat and activist; Sukhdeo Thorat, ugc chairperson and K Balagopal, human rights lawyer.
The Complete story is in the link here. Pl. click and see.
http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20080531&filename=news&sec_id=50&sid=26
Land alienation, poverty amongst scheduled tribes and dalits and lack of access to basic forest resources have contributed to the growth of naxalism, says the Planning Commission. Its report, Development challenges in extremist affected areas, indicts Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh. The report also critiques sezs and the complete failure of instruments like the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
In 2006, the Planning Commission set up an expert group headed by D Bandopadhyay, a retired ias officer experienced in dealing with naxalites in West Bengal in the 1970s, to look into the phenomenon of naxalism. Its terms of reference included "identification of processes and causes contributing to continued tensions and alienation in the areas of unrest and discontent, such as widespread displacement, forest issues, insecured tenancies and other forms of exploitation like usury, land alienation, etc".
It also included "special measures to be taken for strengthening the implementation of pesa". The committee comprised Prakash Singh, former up dgp; Ajit Doval, former director of the Intelligence Bureau; B D Sharma, retired bureaucrat and activist; Sukhdeo Thorat, ugc chairperson and K Balagopal, human rights lawyer.
The Complete story is in the link here. Pl. click and see.
http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20080531&filename=news&sec_id=50&sid=26
Video series on "Science Education in इंडिया" by Prof Yashpal
A 5-part Video series on "Science Education in India" an interview with Prof। Yash Pal, a renowned name in the field of science, education and popularisation of science was conducted by Rima Chibb. May like to open the link and see and listen to the interview one by one. Very interesting and exciting.
Part I
At 82, Prof Yash Pal remains fresh and exuberates wit,charisma and substance as he gave me an overview and insight into science & education in India ...what it is and what it should be ? How science teaching and curricullum should emerge from children and how new learnings takes place at the border of many disciplines.I had the opportunity of working with him during the "Turning Point days" which was a televison series on popular science in India and am absolutely thrilled with this reflective chat especially the " Who am I , Prof Yashpal "
( End Part 5)
Enjoy !!!
Rima Chibb
Personal Message
I recently got an opportunity to interview Prof. Yashpal. It was so good that I felt it should be on YouTube for all to see. Rima
Thanks,
rimachibb
Part I
At 82, Prof Yash Pal remains fresh and exuberates wit,charisma and substance as he gave me an overview and insight into science & education in India ...what it is and what it should be ? How science teaching and curricullum should emerge from children and how new learnings takes place at the border of many disciplines.I had the opportunity of working with him during the "Turning Point days" which was a televison series on popular science in India and am absolutely thrilled with this reflective chat especially the " Who am I , Prof Yashpal "
( End Part 5)
Enjoy !!!
Rima Chibb
Personal Message
I recently got an opportunity to interview Prof. Yashpal. It was so good that I felt it should be on YouTube for all to see. Rima
Thanks,
rimachibb
Thursday, July 31, 2008
सामान्य विद्यालय व्यवस्था
The following link related to the RTE Bill 2008 on Common School System may be useful
http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/documents/PresentationSchoolEducation.ppt
http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/documents/PresentationSchoolEducation.ppt
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
3. डॉ अनिल सदगोपाल के शिक्षा पर तेहेल्का में लेख
MISCONCEIVING FUNDAMENTALS, DISMANTLING RIGHTS
deciphering the neo-liberal assault on Right to Education
- Dr. Anil Sadgopal
Today, if a parent petitions the Court to demand addition of pre-primary sections with trained nursery teachers in the government primary school or seeks a pupil:teacher ratio of 1:30 instead of 1:40, or if yet another parent pleads that her child.s potential for music, art or games is not supported since there is no provision for teachers in these critical areas . in such examples, if the judges see merit in the petition they may pass a favourable judgment.
This became possible because of the Supreme Court.s historic Unnikrishnan Judgment in 1993 which gave all children up to fourteen years of age a Fundamental Right to Education. The Court contended that the Fundamental Right to Life (Article 21) in Part III of the Constitution should be read in .harmonious construction. with the Directive in Article 45 (Part IV) to provide Free and Compulsory Education to the 0-14 year age group children, including those below six years of age. Hence, by implication, free education of equitable quality from nursery stage to Class VIII became a Fundamental Right.
This judicial framework will be dismantled once the Draft Right to Education (RTE) Bill, 2008 becomes an Act. The UPA government was all set to present this Bill in the Budget Session but it did not happen. Strangely, this may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The Unnikrishnan Judgment sent jitters down the spine of the ruling elite. It meant that the government would have to reprioritise the Indian economy in favour of the masses. Even more frightening to the rulers was the political implication of entitlement of the masses to education of equitable quality. They will then be enabled to compete with the privileged classes and demand their equal share in economic and democratic life.
Since 1993, the successive governments at the centre undertook exercises to undo the impact of the Unnikrishnan Judgment . designing ways to dilute and distort the meaning of Fundamental Right to Education. This culminated in the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act (2002). The Act inserted a new Article 21A in Part III which limited the Fundamental Right to the 6-14 age group, thereby disentitling 17 crore children below six years of their Fundamental Right to nutrition, health and pre-primary education. Article 21A further stated that free and compulsory education shall be provided .in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. This conditionality was brought in to enable the State to circumscribe the
Fundamental Right of even the 6-14 age group.
The issue of Right to Education is critically linked to Common School System founded on neighbourhood schools. In 1966, the Kothari Commission had argued that such a system was necessary to build a socially cohesive society. All children in a given neighbourhood, drawn from diverse backgrounds, should be able to study and socialise together in a common public
An abridged version appeared in TEHELKA magazine, 14th June 2008, pp. 44-45, New Delhi.
space.
This has been the organising principle of school education in G-8 countries like the
USA, Canada, France, Germany and Japan. Is it not absurd to even think of a .right. to unequal and inferior education? Yet, this is what is provided through the current multi-layered school system. The Draft Bill legitimises the schools that promote inequality such as the government elite schools (e.g. Kendriya Vidyalayas) and the private unaided schools. This reflects in its provision of 25% reservation of seats in such schools for purportedly .free. education of the weaker sections from the
neighbourhood. For 75% of the admitted children, both the principle of neighbourhood and the Fundamental Right to free education stand violated. The 25% provision shares its rationale with the neo-liberal guru Milton Friedman.s school vouchers that are meant to promote private schools out of public funds. The Eleventh Plan also pushes school vouchers along with public-private partnership. By providing for shifting of public funds to private schools, the Draft Bill becomes an instrument of the market forces.
The Prime Minister constituted a High Level Group (HLG) comprising Finance Minister,
Planning Commission.s Deputy Chairman, PM.s Economic Advisory Council Chairman and
the Human Resource Development Minister. The HLG promptly concluded that the centre
lacked resources for implementing the RTE Bill and that it should be primarily a state government responsibility. This amounts to kowtowing to neo-liberal pressure for abdication of the State.s Constitutional obligation. A recent Note prepared by the HRD Ministry for the Union Cabinet warns that, unless the 86th Amendment is immediately enforced through an RTE Act, the Unnikrishnan Judgment covering the 0-14 age group will prevail. This vindicates my decade-old stand that the hidden
agenda of 86th Constitutional Amendment is to snatch away the Fundamental Right gained by the children below six years and also to circumscribe, through a law, the right being purportedly given to the 6-14 age group. Yet, the central government has balked at introducing even a diluted and distorted Bill (see BOX). It is clearly not a matter of lack of resources but of the government.s neo-liberal priority framework. This is why it backed out.
The dilemma was underscored at the November 2007 meeting by HLG chairperson Arjun
Singh who suggested that .the only logical way out is to report to the Prime Minister that the Constitutional Amendment . . . .was legislated in a hurry without taking into account all the attendant problems.. This is indeed an irony, particularly because all political parties had voted for the 86th Amendment. It is not unlikely that the market forces and neo-liberal advisers are pressurising the government to repeal the 86th Amendment, but for the wrong reason.
A public campaign is called for to seek replacement of the 86th Amendment by an
Amendment that would give an unconditional Fundamental Right to children from birth to 18 years, encompassing early childhood care and pre-primary education onwards through Class XII. The Right to Education Bill could then be imbued with a vision of systemic transformation for equality in and through education, rather than making adjustment with neo-liberalism. This will create the framework for building a Common School System in order to forge a sense of common citizenship for a democratic, egalitarian and secular society.
deciphering the neo-liberal assault on Right to Education
- Dr. Anil Sadgopal
Today, if a parent petitions the Court to demand addition of pre-primary sections with trained nursery teachers in the government primary school or seeks a pupil:teacher ratio of 1:30 instead of 1:40, or if yet another parent pleads that her child.s potential for music, art or games is not supported since there is no provision for teachers in these critical areas . in such examples, if the judges see merit in the petition they may pass a favourable judgment.
This became possible because of the Supreme Court.s historic Unnikrishnan Judgment in 1993 which gave all children up to fourteen years of age a Fundamental Right to Education. The Court contended that the Fundamental Right to Life (Article 21) in Part III of the Constitution should be read in .harmonious construction. with the Directive in Article 45 (Part IV) to provide Free and Compulsory Education to the 0-14 year age group children, including those below six years of age. Hence, by implication, free education of equitable quality from nursery stage to Class VIII became a Fundamental Right.
This judicial framework will be dismantled once the Draft Right to Education (RTE) Bill, 2008 becomes an Act. The UPA government was all set to present this Bill in the Budget Session but it did not happen. Strangely, this may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The Unnikrishnan Judgment sent jitters down the spine of the ruling elite. It meant that the government would have to reprioritise the Indian economy in favour of the masses. Even more frightening to the rulers was the political implication of entitlement of the masses to education of equitable quality. They will then be enabled to compete with the privileged classes and demand their equal share in economic and democratic life.
Since 1993, the successive governments at the centre undertook exercises to undo the impact of the Unnikrishnan Judgment . designing ways to dilute and distort the meaning of Fundamental Right to Education. This culminated in the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act (2002). The Act inserted a new Article 21A in Part III which limited the Fundamental Right to the 6-14 age group, thereby disentitling 17 crore children below six years of their Fundamental Right to nutrition, health and pre-primary education. Article 21A further stated that free and compulsory education shall be provided .in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. This conditionality was brought in to enable the State to circumscribe the
Fundamental Right of even the 6-14 age group.
The issue of Right to Education is critically linked to Common School System founded on neighbourhood schools. In 1966, the Kothari Commission had argued that such a system was necessary to build a socially cohesive society. All children in a given neighbourhood, drawn from diverse backgrounds, should be able to study and socialise together in a common public
An abridged version appeared in TEHELKA magazine, 14th June 2008, pp. 44-45, New Delhi.
space.
This has been the organising principle of school education in G-8 countries like the
USA, Canada, France, Germany and Japan. Is it not absurd to even think of a .right. to unequal and inferior education? Yet, this is what is provided through the current multi-layered school system. The Draft Bill legitimises the schools that promote inequality such as the government elite schools (e.g. Kendriya Vidyalayas) and the private unaided schools. This reflects in its provision of 25% reservation of seats in such schools for purportedly .free. education of the weaker sections from the
neighbourhood. For 75% of the admitted children, both the principle of neighbourhood and the Fundamental Right to free education stand violated. The 25% provision shares its rationale with the neo-liberal guru Milton Friedman.s school vouchers that are meant to promote private schools out of public funds. The Eleventh Plan also pushes school vouchers along with public-private partnership. By providing for shifting of public funds to private schools, the Draft Bill becomes an instrument of the market forces.
The Prime Minister constituted a High Level Group (HLG) comprising Finance Minister,
Planning Commission.s Deputy Chairman, PM.s Economic Advisory Council Chairman and
the Human Resource Development Minister. The HLG promptly concluded that the centre
lacked resources for implementing the RTE Bill and that it should be primarily a state government responsibility. This amounts to kowtowing to neo-liberal pressure for abdication of the State.s Constitutional obligation. A recent Note prepared by the HRD Ministry for the Union Cabinet warns that, unless the 86th Amendment is immediately enforced through an RTE Act, the Unnikrishnan Judgment covering the 0-14 age group will prevail. This vindicates my decade-old stand that the hidden
agenda of 86th Constitutional Amendment is to snatch away the Fundamental Right gained by the children below six years and also to circumscribe, through a law, the right being purportedly given to the 6-14 age group. Yet, the central government has balked at introducing even a diluted and distorted Bill (see BOX). It is clearly not a matter of lack of resources but of the government.s neo-liberal priority framework. This is why it backed out.
The dilemma was underscored at the November 2007 meeting by HLG chairperson Arjun
Singh who suggested that .the only logical way out is to report to the Prime Minister that the Constitutional Amendment . . . .was legislated in a hurry without taking into account all the attendant problems.. This is indeed an irony, particularly because all political parties had voted for the 86th Amendment. It is not unlikely that the market forces and neo-liberal advisers are pressurising the government to repeal the 86th Amendment, but for the wrong reason.
A public campaign is called for to seek replacement of the 86th Amendment by an
Amendment that would give an unconditional Fundamental Right to children from birth to 18 years, encompassing early childhood care and pre-primary education onwards through Class XII. The Right to Education Bill could then be imbued with a vision of systemic transformation for equality in and through education, rather than making adjustment with neo-liberalism. This will create the framework for building a Common School System in order to forge a sense of common citizenship for a democratic, egalitarian and secular society.
BOX
.Dirty Dozen. Flaws of the Draft Right to Education Bill, 2008
1. Lacks provision to compel the State to provide adequate funds.
2. Dilutes the Fundamental Right of children below six years to nutrition, health and preprimary
education by falsely equating it with ICDS.
3. Denies right to secondary and senior secondary education.
4. Shifts public funds to private unaided fee-charging schools to exacerbate
commercialisation, exclusion and inequality.
5. Legitimises inequality through a multi-layered school system.
6. Permits violation of the .neighbourhood. principle by the government-run elite and
private schools, allowing them to charge fees and screen and exclude children.
7. Continues discrimination against government school children as their teachers will still
be deployed for census, elections and disaster relief duties.
8. Doesn.t provide for the states/UTs to regulate private unaided schools, leaving them
free to indulge in profiteering, anti-child practices and other violations.
9. Fails to guarantee child.s mother tongue as medium of education, even at primary stage.
(For children of linguistic minority groups, this violates Article 350A.)
10. Contains subtle provisions that exclude disabled children from schools.
11. Opens space for private agencies to make money through questionable assessment.
12. Lacks guarantee of dignified salaries, professional development, promotional avenues
and just social security for teachers and prevention of fragmentation of teachers. cadre.
- - - - - - -
E-8/29, Sahkar Nagar
Bhopal 462 039, India
Tel.: (0755) 2560438
Mo.: 9425600637
Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
.Dirty Dozen. Flaws of the Draft Right to Education Bill, 2008
1. Lacks provision to compel the State to provide adequate funds.
2. Dilutes the Fundamental Right of children below six years to nutrition, health and preprimary
education by falsely equating it with ICDS.
3. Denies right to secondary and senior secondary education.
4. Shifts public funds to private unaided fee-charging schools to exacerbate
commercialisation, exclusion and inequality.
5. Legitimises inequality through a multi-layered school system.
6. Permits violation of the .neighbourhood. principle by the government-run elite and
private schools, allowing them to charge fees and screen and exclude children.
7. Continues discrimination against government school children as their teachers will still
be deployed for census, elections and disaster relief duties.
8. Doesn.t provide for the states/UTs to regulate private unaided schools, leaving them
free to indulge in profiteering, anti-child practices and other violations.
9. Fails to guarantee child.s mother tongue as medium of education, even at primary stage.
(For children of linguistic minority groups, this violates Article 350A.)
10. Contains subtle provisions that exclude disabled children from schools.
11. Opens space for private agencies to make money through questionable assessment.
12. Lacks guarantee of dignified salaries, professional development, promotional avenues
and just social security for teachers and prevention of fragmentation of teachers. cadre.
- - - - - - -
E-8/29, Sahkar Nagar
Bhopal 462 039, India
Tel.: (0755) 2560438
Mo.: 9425600637
Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
2. Dr. Anil's Janta Editorial
COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM: DO WE HAVE AN OPTION?
- Prof. Anil Sadgopal
In October 1997, as I walked out of the international airport of Toronto (Ontario,
Canada), my eyes caught the newspaper headlines announcing .State-wide School
Teachers. Strike.. Coming from India, this was nothing unusual. However, the next
headline puzzled me. It read: .Joint Rally of Teachers and Parents.. It made no sense at
all. How can the teachers and the parents join hands in a protest? In India, parents would
be furious if teachers go on strike but here they were marching and shouting slogans
together.
The protest was so massive that the entire state of Ontario came to a standstill for
the next seven days. It was a common political issue for all. The faculty and the students
of the University of Toronto extended full support. Seminars and sit-ins were held at the
university campus, addressed by the leadership of the unions of school and university
teachers alike and supported by student organizations and parent groups. I was amazed at
this solidarity. The provincial government was under fire for two issues. First, the
government had declared major budget cuts in school education. Second, the autonomous
elected school boards, responsible for decentralized management of school clusters
(including teacher appointments, curriculum and exams) were to be merged to form
larger boards in order to save money. To the parents and teachers, the larger boards
signaled decline in the quality of management.
I was in Canada to attend a conference against globalization. My hosts explained
that both of these government decisions were indicative of the neo-liberal policy shifts.
These were designed to increasingly result in abdication of the State.s role in the social
sector, particularly education and health, eventually affecting the whole of Canada. This,
however, did not explain the people.s solidarity. In India, too, similar neo-liberal policy
shifts in education were evident. Yet, neither the teachers nor the parents seemed to be
concerned. The educated middle class apparently did not care how the neo-liberal
policies were destroying the vast government school system, with consequent increase in
the pace of privatization of school education. On the contrary, the middle class, though
unhappy about the increasing cost of education, implicitly supported privatization.
The explanation became apparent as I studied the Canadian school system. In
Canada, the public-funded school system essentially covered the entire population and
was maintained at a high level of quality. The private schools played a negligible role. In
spite of public funding, the government control or interference was at its minimum. The
school boards, comprising, on average, 50-60 schools, were responsible and accountable
for teacher appointments, placement and promotions, curriculum and textbooks, exams,
maintenance of quality and all other aspects of management.
Published in JANATA magazine, Vol. 63, No. 19, 01 June 2008, Mumbai, India.
Each school was essentially a neighbourhood school. All children, irrespective of
their socio-economic or cultural background, studied in these schools. It did not matter
who you were . university professor or a factory worker, senior government official or a
garbage truck driver, prime minister or a farm labour, corporate executive or a police
constable . if you had a child, she would go to the neighbourhood public-funded school.
Period. There was no choice. Now, this explained the people.s solidarity. This was so
since the quality of education received by everybody.s children was going to be equally
but negatively affected by the two political decisions taken by the provincial government.
All citizens of Ontario had a common political stake in maintaining the quality of the
public-funded school system.
An entirely contrary scenario was witnessed in Bhopal in February 2008. About
30,000 lowly paid under-qualified and untrained para-teachers appointed in Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan.s (SSA) 27,000 odd Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) centres of
Madhya Pradesh were on strike. Euphemistically called guruji, they were demanding
regularization as teachers after several years of service. Each year they would go on
strike to draw state government.s attention but to no avail. This time, however, realizing
the significance of the election year, the guruji union decided to intensify its battle. In the
beginning, the gurujis sat at the usual dharna site and were ignored. The gurujis then
shifted their dharna to block one of the roads leading to a high profile market serving the
upcoming middle class of the city. There was a hue and cry. The media openly criticized
the state government . mind you, not for the closure of 27,000 centres in tribal, dalit and
other backward hamlets but for its inability to keep the access to the market open. Not a
word of sympathy was uttered by anyone . not even by the political leaders . either for
the loss of studies suffered by 7-8 lakh poor children or the discriminatory treatment
given to the gurujis.
What else would you expect? None of those who shop in the high profile Bhopal
market, including the political leaders residing in the state capital, send their children to
government schools, least of all to the inferior quality single-teacher EGS centres of SSA.
Neither the powerful IAS and IPS officials nor the media personnel have any stake in the
government school system. Even more deafening was the silence of the teachers. unions.
The neo-liberal policy decisions taken in the second half of 1990s had fragmented the
teachers. cadre into six categories . the regular teachers (declared by the then CM as .a
dying cadre.), Shikshakarmis, three separate cadres of Samvida Shikshaks (i.e. contract
teachers) and finally the lowly gurujis. Each cadre fought its battle separately, holding
dharnas at different times of the year. Apart from this division of teachers. voice, the
irony is that the teachers themselves have no stake in the parallel layers of schools they
teach in since their own children also go to private schools!
The Great Escape : Loss of a Common Political Stake
The government, kowtowing to the World Bank policies, has established a multilayered
school system from the mid-eighties onwards, each layer with its own teachers
cadre and meant for a separate social segment. This led to rapid deterioration of the
quality of government schools during the past 15 years as all the privileged sections of
society, with any political voice or lobby worth the name, shifted their children to private
schools. The creamy layer among the SCs, STs, OBCs and muslims, by and large, also
followed suit. Today, the multi-layered government school system has only the weakest,
mostly the marginalized dalits, tribals, extreme OBCs and muslims, particularly girls in
each of these sections of society. The only exception to this phenomenon is the miniscule
number of elite schools like the Kendriya or Navodaya Vidyalayas of the central
government and similar high profile schools set up by various state governments.
Education has become a commodity, rather than an entitlement or a Fundamental Right.
Those who can afford to buy education do and those who can.t are compelled to accept
the government system. Unlike Canada, there is no common political stake in the nation.s
education system. Even the Members of Parliament and state legislatures have hardly any
interest left in the government system in spite of voting budget allocations or cuts therein
year after year.
Few realize that, like Canada, other G-8 nations also have a well-functioning
public-funded school system built on the principle of neighbourhood schools. This is
particularly true for the USA, France, Germany and Japan, though neo-liberal policies are
steadily making inroads in these countries too. Without a Common School System in
some form or another, none of the developed nation would have reached where they are
today. This includes U.K. which earlier boasted of its privileged grammar schools but had
to move towards an inclusive Comprehensive Schools System under rising democratic
pressure in the 1970s which did away with selection for admissions. What is true for the
G-8 nations is also true, by and large, for the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, China,
South Korea, Cuba and former members of the Soviet Union - all of which achieved
almost universal school education decades ago. This success transcends ideological
history or present economic persuasion. Can India hope to be an exception to this
historical experience?
We were also moving towards a Common School System (CSS) until mid-1970s.
The only aberration was a handful of the so-called Public Schools, designed in the elite
English tradition, serving the top echelons of the Indian privileged classes. A substantial
proportion of the people of that generation who are still leading national institutions in
various critical sectors had received quality education in either government, local body or
private but government-aided schools. It was around this time that the elite and upper
middle class started shifting to private unaided fee-charging schools, primarily in pursuit
of English-medium education and competition-based and career-oriented curriculum. No
one can blame this section of society since the government policies had failed to establish
the relevance of either the Indian languages or the prevailing school curriculum for entry
into civil services, judiciary, business or industry, S&T, and professional services. This
For a more detailed description and analysis of the neo-liberal impact on Indian education system, please see my articles viz. (a) .Dilution, Distortion and Diversion: A Post-Jomtien Reflection on the Education Policy. in The Crisis of Elementary Education in India (Ed. Ravi Kumar), SAGE Publications, New Delhi, pp. 92-136, 2006; and (b) .Common School System and the Future of India., JANATA, Vol. 63, No. 16, May 11, 2008, pp. 1-32, Mumbai.
great escape. is precisely what triggered the decline of the quality of one of the world.s
largest public-funded school systems (a total of 12 lakh schools today).
The crisis was foreseen by the Education Commission (1964-66), popularly called
the Kothari Commission, which recommended CSS as the National System of Education
with a view to .bring the different social classes and groups together and thus promote
the emergence of an egalitarian and integrated society.. The Commission warned that
.instead of doing so, education itself is tending to increase social segregation and to
perpetuate and widen class distinctions.. It further noted that .this is bad not only for the
children of the poor but also for the children of the rich and the privileged groups. since
.by segregating their children, such privileged parents prevent them from sharing the life
and experiences of the children of the poor and coming into contact with the realities of
life. . . . . . also render the education of their own children anaemic and incomplete.. Both
the 1968 and 1986 policies resolved to move towards CSS.
Common School System : Defining, Debating and Discourse Building
There are three confusions regarding CSS that are deliberately created by the
powerful private school lobby, neo-liberal ideologues and the representatives of the
global market forces. First, CSS is misperceived as a uniform school system. On the
contrary, it is the present education system that follows a rigid curricular and pedagogic
framework circumscribed by Boards of Examination and now international affiliations.
All this has worked against children.s natural attributes such as creativity, curiosity,
questioning, dissent or tendency to explore and chart new paths. It reinforces compulsion,
comparison and competition that restrict options, academic freedom, co-operation and
team functioning. Such a framework pushes children to adopt dishonest and immoral
practices in exams. The 11th Plan is talking of using secondary education for building
skilled labour force for the global market. This means even greater regimentation rooted
in a mechanistic approach. Modern educational theory, however, expects each school or a
cluster of schools to be able to respond to the local contexts and reflect the rich diversity
across the country. The rigidity of the present system can be challenged only when
flexibility, contextuality and plurality are accepted, among others, as the defining
principles of CSS. Indeed, it should certainly be possible to conceive of a national system
wherein, in principle, no two schools shall be identical and each will be known for its
unique conception of quality, albeit within a broad national curriculum framework. In this
sense, CSS can be visualized as the most urgently needed reform.
Second, CSS is irrationally projected as one that acts against quality, talent
and merit. On the contrary, it is the present system based upon paying capacity,
privileges and false sense of superiority that has alienated the most powerful sections of
society from the government schools system, if not from Bharat itself! As a consequence
of this .great escape., the government school system has lost its voice of advocacy at the
highest fora. Political leadership, corporate executives, academia, professionals, writers
and the media personnel have no vested interest left in the improvement of the quality of
government schools. Further, the neo-liberal Structural Adjustment Programme imposed
on the Indian economy since 1991 has resulted in steady withdrawal of resources from
the education sector, expressed as percentage of GDP. This has led to a policy of .multitrack
. education system based upon poor infrastructure, multi-grade teaching and parateachers.
It has meant exclusion of at least two-thirds of our children from quality
education, thereby suppressing their inherent potential for contributing to social or
national development. Less than a third of nation.s genetic pool is available for talent and
merit development.
Third, it is wrongly claimed that CSS will not permit a privately managed
school to retain its non-government and unaided (or aided) character. Again, CSS
implies that all schools . irrespective of the type of their management, sources of income
or affiliating Boards of examinations . will participate and fulfill their responsibility as
part of the National System of Education. All what is expected of such schools is that
they operate within the framework of the Constitution and function as genuine
neighbourhood schools. With 86th Constitutional Amendment, .free and compulsory.
elementary education has become a Fundamental Right. This means that the very notion
of fees or other contingent charges, at least until class VIII, have become anti-
Constitutional! The Constitution has liberal space for philanthropy but not for
commodification of education.
The Neighbourhood School and Other Essentials of CSS
Further, the CSS based on neighbourhood schools implies a heterogeneous
classroom representing the diversity (along with disparity) prevailing in the
neighbourhood. Only then, all sections of society, including the post powerful, will have
a vested interest in improving the government school system. The neighbourhood school
needs to be envisioned as a common public space where children of diverse backgrounds
can study and socialize together. This is a pre-condition in a society like ours for forging
a sense of common citizenship without which a healthy democracy can not function.
Also, can there be a Fundamental Right to education of unequal and inferior quality
education? Let me go a step further. The 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002) inserted
a new Article 21A in Part III of the Constitution that made .Free and Compulsory
education. a Fundamental Right for the 6-14 age group children. Does the Constitution
permit a Fundamental Right to education that violates the principles of equality and
social justice enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 16? Naturally, not. Given this, do we have
any option other than the CSS based on neighbourhood schools that will be in
conformity with the vision of education emerging from the Constitution?
The present school system structurally promotes discrimination. May be an
example would be helpful here. The teachers of the government schools are pulled out of
the schools frequently on a variety of non-teaching assignments, ranging from counting
sheep and conducting Below Poverty Line Survey to organizing elections and doing the
decennial Census. This implies colossal loss of teaching days. More importantly, this
makes the teacher cynical about her profession and gives a misleading political message
that everything else is important other than teaching children. In contrast, the private
school children do not suffer any such loss. In a way, we can say that the poor children
going to government schools sacrifice their education in order to sustain democracy in
India and build a data base for social development and economic planning. This
discrimination against government school children (almost 90% of the children enrolled
at the elementary stage) will come to a halt only when the children of the ruling elite will
start going to the government schools.
Let us also realize that any attempt to introduce curricular or pedagogic reforms,
as the NCERT attempts to do periodically, in a hierarchical system is bound to increase
discrimination and exclusion. The collapse of World Bank.s District Primary Education
Programme (DPEP) in the nineties and now of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) provides
historic evidence of this common sense thumb rule. Such arbitrary and temporary
schemes or projects have no relevance to the crisis of education faced by the nation. This
is because these schemes are not even designed to bring about any basic structural
reforms that would open up space for re-construction of the endangered relationship
between the child, the teacher and the curriculum. This is precisely why these schemes
have failed to achieve their declared objectives. Nothing short of a radical transformation
is required to move forward.
Let us briefly list eight essential conditions for building the CSS that will apply
equally to the government-run elite schools and the private unaided schools:
1. All schools to be neighbourhood schools with a defined neighbourhood. Diversity
would be optimized while delineating the neighbourhood.
2. All schools to fulfill a set of minimum Norms and Standards with respect to the
infrastructure, teacher quality and status, pupil:teacher ratio, non-teaching staff,
potable water, electricity and telephone, toilets, supporting systems for the
disabled, teaching aids, ICT facilities, library and laboratory, playground and play
equipment, facilities for fine arts and performing arts, curriculum and pedagogy
and all other parameters for ensuring quality education.
3. As per Article 21A of the Constitution, all schools to provide absolutely Free
education from nursery stage to Class VIII. As per Article 41 and its interpretation
by the Supreme Court.s Unnikrishnan Judgment (1993), the government to
regulate the fee structure of all schools, especially the private unaided schools,
from Class IX to XII, preventing profiteering, parking of funds and income tax
evasion.
4. All schools to follow the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) that would be
reviewed from time to time. NCF will define a core curriculum that would be
common to all schools except that the regional diversity will be appropriately
reflected in the elements of the Core Curriculum. Apart from the core, there will
be ample latitude and flexibility in the rest of the NCF to design curriculum at the
level of the states, districts, Blocks or even the village panchayats in accordance
with the local socio-cultural milieu, provided the broad principles of NCF are
maintained. This would make it possible to institutionalize a decentralized
practice of designing of curriculum, syllabi, textbooks, teaching-learning process
and assessment such that the process would appropriately reflect the rich geocultural
diversity of the country while maintaining a balance with the concepts
critical for developing a national and global vision. The above framework also
provides adequate space for curricular innovation, experimentation and even
dissent at the level of the individual schools, teachers and students.
5. A common policy of language education founded on the principle of multilingualism
of the vast majority of India.s children and the mother tongue.s critical
role in the learning process, including the learning of the state/UT language as
well as Hindi and English.
6. The curriculum, pedagogy, textbooks and the school ambience to ensure that no
child feels excluded or marginalized due to the presentation of SCs, STs, extreme
OBCs, minorities and the disabled and the women in each of these sections in a
negative image. Inclusive education implies that the contribution made by all
sections of society to the freedom movement and to the building of the postindependence
India is appropriately brought alive in the school.
7. Critical Pedagogy to guide the transformation of the present multi-layered
hierarchical school system into the CSS based on neighbourhood schools, since
the CSS implies much more than a structural change; it implies an education that
liberates the child.s mind, enabling her to resist injustice, deconstruct capitalism
and neo-liberalism and struggle for social transformation.
8. Each school to have a management committee of its own, with at least 75% of the
members being the parents of the children attending the concerned school; SCs,
STs, OBCs and the minorities to have proportionate representation; and half of
the members to be women. The functions and duties of the committee to be welldefined
through a law.
If the above concept of the CSS and neighbourhood schooling requires a legislation by
the Parliament, then this must be made into an urgent issue of a nation-wide political
struggle. In light of the long-delayed Right to Education Bill, it may be worthwhile to
seek to redraft the Bill with a vision of systemic transformation for building the CSS
based on neighbourhood schools (see my article in TEHELKA, 14th June 2008).
Concluding Remarks
To be sure, there are powerful forces trying to divert public attention from the
Common School agenda through clever devices. These include private schools running
.afternoon centres. for the poor, 25% reservation provision in the Draft Right to
Education Bill 2008 for poor children of the neighbourhood in private schools and now
the 11th Plan proposal of school vouchers and public-private partnership for backdoor
funding of private schools out of public funds. These are ways of justifying and
legitimizing the present exclusionary system. We have to also learn to identify and resist
the market fundamentalists and neo-liberal consultants in the academia, media, policy
making and their fellow-traveller NGOs who are working overtime to push the neoliberal
ideology in Indian education system in particular and the economic and
democratic life in general.
The struggle for equality in and through education can.t be delinked either from
the struggle for jal-jangal-zameen and jeevika or from the struggle for social
transformation. The evolving discourse on Common School System will also have to deal
with the eternal question: Can such a radical systemic transformation in education take
place without a socialist revolution? While we may not have a clear answer, an operating
thesis may be debated. This may not be seen as the proverbial chicken and egg question.
Instead, a dynamic relationship based upon dialectical materialism between educational
and socialist transformation may be assumed for moving forward. Both are democratic
struggles in which the participation of the masses is critical and must be advanced
together. The impact of participation in these struggles on the critical consciousness of
the people must not be under-estimated.
This then provides a preliminary framework for developing a pedagogy of
reconstruction of socio-economic and democratic institutions in the country. This
includes the educational system. While debating theories and building strategies, we need
to have clarity on the basic issue. By postponing the Common School System functioning
through neighbourhood schools, we would only postpone giving every child an equal
opportunity to fully develop her potential for knowledge acquisition, internalisation of
humane and democratic values and, above all, articulation of her own vision of India. The
reference to articulation of child.s vision implies a socio-political construction contoured
by Critical Pedagogy, even if the vision conflicts with today.s so-called .mainstream.
vision rooted in class, caste, cultural, linguistic, regional and patriarchal hegemony,
increasingly reinforced by neo-liberalism. All this is essential groundwork for political
struggle. We may re-iterate, even if not over-emphasise, that the Common School System
is the only educational framework known to us which will enable us to forge a sense of
common citizenship to wage a united struggle for a democratic, socialist, egalitarian and
secular society.
27 May 2008
E-8/29, Sahkar Nagar
Bhopal 462 039, India
Tel.: (0755) 2560438
Mo.: 9425600637
Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
- Prof. Anil Sadgopal
In October 1997, as I walked out of the international airport of Toronto (Ontario,
Canada), my eyes caught the newspaper headlines announcing .State-wide School
Teachers. Strike.. Coming from India, this was nothing unusual. However, the next
headline puzzled me. It read: .Joint Rally of Teachers and Parents.. It made no sense at
all. How can the teachers and the parents join hands in a protest? In India, parents would
be furious if teachers go on strike but here they were marching and shouting slogans
together.
The protest was so massive that the entire state of Ontario came to a standstill for
the next seven days. It was a common political issue for all. The faculty and the students
of the University of Toronto extended full support. Seminars and sit-ins were held at the
university campus, addressed by the leadership of the unions of school and university
teachers alike and supported by student organizations and parent groups. I was amazed at
this solidarity. The provincial government was under fire for two issues. First, the
government had declared major budget cuts in school education. Second, the autonomous
elected school boards, responsible for decentralized management of school clusters
(including teacher appointments, curriculum and exams) were to be merged to form
larger boards in order to save money. To the parents and teachers, the larger boards
signaled decline in the quality of management.
I was in Canada to attend a conference against globalization. My hosts explained
that both of these government decisions were indicative of the neo-liberal policy shifts.
These were designed to increasingly result in abdication of the State.s role in the social
sector, particularly education and health, eventually affecting the whole of Canada. This,
however, did not explain the people.s solidarity. In India, too, similar neo-liberal policy
shifts in education were evident. Yet, neither the teachers nor the parents seemed to be
concerned. The educated middle class apparently did not care how the neo-liberal
policies were destroying the vast government school system, with consequent increase in
the pace of privatization of school education. On the contrary, the middle class, though
unhappy about the increasing cost of education, implicitly supported privatization.
The explanation became apparent as I studied the Canadian school system. In
Canada, the public-funded school system essentially covered the entire population and
was maintained at a high level of quality. The private schools played a negligible role. In
spite of public funding, the government control or interference was at its minimum. The
school boards, comprising, on average, 50-60 schools, were responsible and accountable
for teacher appointments, placement and promotions, curriculum and textbooks, exams,
maintenance of quality and all other aspects of management.
Published in JANATA magazine, Vol. 63, No. 19, 01 June 2008, Mumbai, India.
Each school was essentially a neighbourhood school. All children, irrespective of
their socio-economic or cultural background, studied in these schools. It did not matter
who you were . university professor or a factory worker, senior government official or a
garbage truck driver, prime minister or a farm labour, corporate executive or a police
constable . if you had a child, she would go to the neighbourhood public-funded school.
Period. There was no choice. Now, this explained the people.s solidarity. This was so
since the quality of education received by everybody.s children was going to be equally
but negatively affected by the two political decisions taken by the provincial government.
All citizens of Ontario had a common political stake in maintaining the quality of the
public-funded school system.
An entirely contrary scenario was witnessed in Bhopal in February 2008. About
30,000 lowly paid under-qualified and untrained para-teachers appointed in Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan.s (SSA) 27,000 odd Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) centres of
Madhya Pradesh were on strike. Euphemistically called guruji, they were demanding
regularization as teachers after several years of service. Each year they would go on
strike to draw state government.s attention but to no avail. This time, however, realizing
the significance of the election year, the guruji union decided to intensify its battle. In the
beginning, the gurujis sat at the usual dharna site and were ignored. The gurujis then
shifted their dharna to block one of the roads leading to a high profile market serving the
upcoming middle class of the city. There was a hue and cry. The media openly criticized
the state government . mind you, not for the closure of 27,000 centres in tribal, dalit and
other backward hamlets but for its inability to keep the access to the market open. Not a
word of sympathy was uttered by anyone . not even by the political leaders . either for
the loss of studies suffered by 7-8 lakh poor children or the discriminatory treatment
given to the gurujis.
What else would you expect? None of those who shop in the high profile Bhopal
market, including the political leaders residing in the state capital, send their children to
government schools, least of all to the inferior quality single-teacher EGS centres of SSA.
Neither the powerful IAS and IPS officials nor the media personnel have any stake in the
government school system. Even more deafening was the silence of the teachers. unions.
The neo-liberal policy decisions taken in the second half of 1990s had fragmented the
teachers. cadre into six categories . the regular teachers (declared by the then CM as .a
dying cadre.), Shikshakarmis, three separate cadres of Samvida Shikshaks (i.e. contract
teachers) and finally the lowly gurujis. Each cadre fought its battle separately, holding
dharnas at different times of the year. Apart from this division of teachers. voice, the
irony is that the teachers themselves have no stake in the parallel layers of schools they
teach in since their own children also go to private schools!
The Great Escape : Loss of a Common Political Stake
The government, kowtowing to the World Bank policies, has established a multilayered
school system from the mid-eighties onwards, each layer with its own teachers
cadre and meant for a separate social segment. This led to rapid deterioration of the
quality of government schools during the past 15 years as all the privileged sections of
society, with any political voice or lobby worth the name, shifted their children to private
schools. The creamy layer among the SCs, STs, OBCs and muslims, by and large, also
followed suit. Today, the multi-layered government school system has only the weakest,
mostly the marginalized dalits, tribals, extreme OBCs and muslims, particularly girls in
each of these sections of society. The only exception to this phenomenon is the miniscule
number of elite schools like the Kendriya or Navodaya Vidyalayas of the central
government and similar high profile schools set up by various state governments.
Education has become a commodity, rather than an entitlement or a Fundamental Right.
Those who can afford to buy education do and those who can.t are compelled to accept
the government system. Unlike Canada, there is no common political stake in the nation.s
education system. Even the Members of Parliament and state legislatures have hardly any
interest left in the government system in spite of voting budget allocations or cuts therein
year after year.
Few realize that, like Canada, other G-8 nations also have a well-functioning
public-funded school system built on the principle of neighbourhood schools. This is
particularly true for the USA, France, Germany and Japan, though neo-liberal policies are
steadily making inroads in these countries too. Without a Common School System in
some form or another, none of the developed nation would have reached where they are
today. This includes U.K. which earlier boasted of its privileged grammar schools but had
to move towards an inclusive Comprehensive Schools System under rising democratic
pressure in the 1970s which did away with selection for admissions. What is true for the
G-8 nations is also true, by and large, for the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, China,
South Korea, Cuba and former members of the Soviet Union - all of which achieved
almost universal school education decades ago. This success transcends ideological
history or present economic persuasion. Can India hope to be an exception to this
historical experience?
We were also moving towards a Common School System (CSS) until mid-1970s.
The only aberration was a handful of the so-called Public Schools, designed in the elite
English tradition, serving the top echelons of the Indian privileged classes. A substantial
proportion of the people of that generation who are still leading national institutions in
various critical sectors had received quality education in either government, local body or
private but government-aided schools. It was around this time that the elite and upper
middle class started shifting to private unaided fee-charging schools, primarily in pursuit
of English-medium education and competition-based and career-oriented curriculum. No
one can blame this section of society since the government policies had failed to establish
the relevance of either the Indian languages or the prevailing school curriculum for entry
into civil services, judiciary, business or industry, S&T, and professional services. This
For a more detailed description and analysis of the neo-liberal impact on Indian education system, please see my articles viz. (a) .Dilution, Distortion and Diversion: A Post-Jomtien Reflection on the Education Policy. in The Crisis of Elementary Education in India (Ed. Ravi Kumar), SAGE Publications, New Delhi, pp. 92-136, 2006; and (b) .Common School System and the Future of India., JANATA, Vol. 63, No. 16, May 11, 2008, pp. 1-32, Mumbai.
great escape. is precisely what triggered the decline of the quality of one of the world.s
largest public-funded school systems (a total of 12 lakh schools today).
The crisis was foreseen by the Education Commission (1964-66), popularly called
the Kothari Commission, which recommended CSS as the National System of Education
with a view to .bring the different social classes and groups together and thus promote
the emergence of an egalitarian and integrated society.. The Commission warned that
.instead of doing so, education itself is tending to increase social segregation and to
perpetuate and widen class distinctions.. It further noted that .this is bad not only for the
children of the poor but also for the children of the rich and the privileged groups. since
.by segregating their children, such privileged parents prevent them from sharing the life
and experiences of the children of the poor and coming into contact with the realities of
life. . . . . . also render the education of their own children anaemic and incomplete.. Both
the 1968 and 1986 policies resolved to move towards CSS.
Common School System : Defining, Debating and Discourse Building
There are three confusions regarding CSS that are deliberately created by the
powerful private school lobby, neo-liberal ideologues and the representatives of the
global market forces. First, CSS is misperceived as a uniform school system. On the
contrary, it is the present education system that follows a rigid curricular and pedagogic
framework circumscribed by Boards of Examination and now international affiliations.
All this has worked against children.s natural attributes such as creativity, curiosity,
questioning, dissent or tendency to explore and chart new paths. It reinforces compulsion,
comparison and competition that restrict options, academic freedom, co-operation and
team functioning. Such a framework pushes children to adopt dishonest and immoral
practices in exams. The 11th Plan is talking of using secondary education for building
skilled labour force for the global market. This means even greater regimentation rooted
in a mechanistic approach. Modern educational theory, however, expects each school or a
cluster of schools to be able to respond to the local contexts and reflect the rich diversity
across the country. The rigidity of the present system can be challenged only when
flexibility, contextuality and plurality are accepted, among others, as the defining
principles of CSS. Indeed, it should certainly be possible to conceive of a national system
wherein, in principle, no two schools shall be identical and each will be known for its
unique conception of quality, albeit within a broad national curriculum framework. In this
sense, CSS can be visualized as the most urgently needed reform.
Second, CSS is irrationally projected as one that acts against quality, talent
and merit. On the contrary, it is the present system based upon paying capacity,
privileges and false sense of superiority that has alienated the most powerful sections of
society from the government schools system, if not from Bharat itself! As a consequence
of this .great escape., the government school system has lost its voice of advocacy at the
highest fora. Political leadership, corporate executives, academia, professionals, writers
and the media personnel have no vested interest left in the improvement of the quality of
government schools. Further, the neo-liberal Structural Adjustment Programme imposed
on the Indian economy since 1991 has resulted in steady withdrawal of resources from
the education sector, expressed as percentage of GDP. This has led to a policy of .multitrack
. education system based upon poor infrastructure, multi-grade teaching and parateachers.
It has meant exclusion of at least two-thirds of our children from quality
education, thereby suppressing their inherent potential for contributing to social or
national development. Less than a third of nation.s genetic pool is available for talent and
merit development.
Third, it is wrongly claimed that CSS will not permit a privately managed
school to retain its non-government and unaided (or aided) character. Again, CSS
implies that all schools . irrespective of the type of their management, sources of income
or affiliating Boards of examinations . will participate and fulfill their responsibility as
part of the National System of Education. All what is expected of such schools is that
they operate within the framework of the Constitution and function as genuine
neighbourhood schools. With 86th Constitutional Amendment, .free and compulsory.
elementary education has become a Fundamental Right. This means that the very notion
of fees or other contingent charges, at least until class VIII, have become anti-
Constitutional! The Constitution has liberal space for philanthropy but not for
commodification of education.
The Neighbourhood School and Other Essentials of CSS
Further, the CSS based on neighbourhood schools implies a heterogeneous
classroom representing the diversity (along with disparity) prevailing in the
neighbourhood. Only then, all sections of society, including the post powerful, will have
a vested interest in improving the government school system. The neighbourhood school
needs to be envisioned as a common public space where children of diverse backgrounds
can study and socialize together. This is a pre-condition in a society like ours for forging
a sense of common citizenship without which a healthy democracy can not function.
Also, can there be a Fundamental Right to education of unequal and inferior quality
education? Let me go a step further. The 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002) inserted
a new Article 21A in Part III of the Constitution that made .Free and Compulsory
education. a Fundamental Right for the 6-14 age group children. Does the Constitution
permit a Fundamental Right to education that violates the principles of equality and
social justice enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 16? Naturally, not. Given this, do we have
any option other than the CSS based on neighbourhood schools that will be in
conformity with the vision of education emerging from the Constitution?
The present school system structurally promotes discrimination. May be an
example would be helpful here. The teachers of the government schools are pulled out of
the schools frequently on a variety of non-teaching assignments, ranging from counting
sheep and conducting Below Poverty Line Survey to organizing elections and doing the
decennial Census. This implies colossal loss of teaching days. More importantly, this
makes the teacher cynical about her profession and gives a misleading political message
that everything else is important other than teaching children. In contrast, the private
school children do not suffer any such loss. In a way, we can say that the poor children
going to government schools sacrifice their education in order to sustain democracy in
India and build a data base for social development and economic planning. This
discrimination against government school children (almost 90% of the children enrolled
at the elementary stage) will come to a halt only when the children of the ruling elite will
start going to the government schools.
Let us also realize that any attempt to introduce curricular or pedagogic reforms,
as the NCERT attempts to do periodically, in a hierarchical system is bound to increase
discrimination and exclusion. The collapse of World Bank.s District Primary Education
Programme (DPEP) in the nineties and now of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) provides
historic evidence of this common sense thumb rule. Such arbitrary and temporary
schemes or projects have no relevance to the crisis of education faced by the nation. This
is because these schemes are not even designed to bring about any basic structural
reforms that would open up space for re-construction of the endangered relationship
between the child, the teacher and the curriculum. This is precisely why these schemes
have failed to achieve their declared objectives. Nothing short of a radical transformation
is required to move forward.
Let us briefly list eight essential conditions for building the CSS that will apply
equally to the government-run elite schools and the private unaided schools:
1. All schools to be neighbourhood schools with a defined neighbourhood. Diversity
would be optimized while delineating the neighbourhood.
2. All schools to fulfill a set of minimum Norms and Standards with respect to the
infrastructure, teacher quality and status, pupil:teacher ratio, non-teaching staff,
potable water, electricity and telephone, toilets, supporting systems for the
disabled, teaching aids, ICT facilities, library and laboratory, playground and play
equipment, facilities for fine arts and performing arts, curriculum and pedagogy
and all other parameters for ensuring quality education.
3. As per Article 21A of the Constitution, all schools to provide absolutely Free
education from nursery stage to Class VIII. As per Article 41 and its interpretation
by the Supreme Court.s Unnikrishnan Judgment (1993), the government to
regulate the fee structure of all schools, especially the private unaided schools,
from Class IX to XII, preventing profiteering, parking of funds and income tax
evasion.
4. All schools to follow the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) that would be
reviewed from time to time. NCF will define a core curriculum that would be
common to all schools except that the regional diversity will be appropriately
reflected in the elements of the Core Curriculum. Apart from the core, there will
be ample latitude and flexibility in the rest of the NCF to design curriculum at the
level of the states, districts, Blocks or even the village panchayats in accordance
with the local socio-cultural milieu, provided the broad principles of NCF are
maintained. This would make it possible to institutionalize a decentralized
practice of designing of curriculum, syllabi, textbooks, teaching-learning process
and assessment such that the process would appropriately reflect the rich geocultural
diversity of the country while maintaining a balance with the concepts
critical for developing a national and global vision. The above framework also
provides adequate space for curricular innovation, experimentation and even
dissent at the level of the individual schools, teachers and students.
5. A common policy of language education founded on the principle of multilingualism
of the vast majority of India.s children and the mother tongue.s critical
role in the learning process, including the learning of the state/UT language as
well as Hindi and English.
6. The curriculum, pedagogy, textbooks and the school ambience to ensure that no
child feels excluded or marginalized due to the presentation of SCs, STs, extreme
OBCs, minorities and the disabled and the women in each of these sections in a
negative image. Inclusive education implies that the contribution made by all
sections of society to the freedom movement and to the building of the postindependence
India is appropriately brought alive in the school.
7. Critical Pedagogy to guide the transformation of the present multi-layered
hierarchical school system into the CSS based on neighbourhood schools, since
the CSS implies much more than a structural change; it implies an education that
liberates the child.s mind, enabling her to resist injustice, deconstruct capitalism
and neo-liberalism and struggle for social transformation.
8. Each school to have a management committee of its own, with at least 75% of the
members being the parents of the children attending the concerned school; SCs,
STs, OBCs and the minorities to have proportionate representation; and half of
the members to be women. The functions and duties of the committee to be welldefined
through a law.
If the above concept of the CSS and neighbourhood schooling requires a legislation by
the Parliament, then this must be made into an urgent issue of a nation-wide political
struggle. In light of the long-delayed Right to Education Bill, it may be worthwhile to
seek to redraft the Bill with a vision of systemic transformation for building the CSS
based on neighbourhood schools (see my article in TEHELKA, 14th June 2008).
Concluding Remarks
To be sure, there are powerful forces trying to divert public attention from the
Common School agenda through clever devices. These include private schools running
.afternoon centres. for the poor, 25% reservation provision in the Draft Right to
Education Bill 2008 for poor children of the neighbourhood in private schools and now
the 11th Plan proposal of school vouchers and public-private partnership for backdoor
funding of private schools out of public funds. These are ways of justifying and
legitimizing the present exclusionary system. We have to also learn to identify and resist
the market fundamentalists and neo-liberal consultants in the academia, media, policy
making and their fellow-traveller NGOs who are working overtime to push the neoliberal
ideology in Indian education system in particular and the economic and
democratic life in general.
The struggle for equality in and through education can.t be delinked either from
the struggle for jal-jangal-zameen and jeevika or from the struggle for social
transformation. The evolving discourse on Common School System will also have to deal
with the eternal question: Can such a radical systemic transformation in education take
place without a socialist revolution? While we may not have a clear answer, an operating
thesis may be debated. This may not be seen as the proverbial chicken and egg question.
Instead, a dynamic relationship based upon dialectical materialism between educational
and socialist transformation may be assumed for moving forward. Both are democratic
struggles in which the participation of the masses is critical and must be advanced
together. The impact of participation in these struggles on the critical consciousness of
the people must not be under-estimated.
This then provides a preliminary framework for developing a pedagogy of
reconstruction of socio-economic and democratic institutions in the country. This
includes the educational system. While debating theories and building strategies, we need
to have clarity on the basic issue. By postponing the Common School System functioning
through neighbourhood schools, we would only postpone giving every child an equal
opportunity to fully develop her potential for knowledge acquisition, internalisation of
humane and democratic values and, above all, articulation of her own vision of India. The
reference to articulation of child.s vision implies a socio-political construction contoured
by Critical Pedagogy, even if the vision conflicts with today.s so-called .mainstream.
vision rooted in class, caste, cultural, linguistic, regional and patriarchal hegemony,
increasingly reinforced by neo-liberalism. All this is essential groundwork for political
struggle. We may re-iterate, even if not over-emphasise, that the Common School System
is the only educational framework known to us which will enable us to forge a sense of
common citizenship to wage a united struggle for a democratic, socialist, egalitarian and
secular society.
27 May 2008
E-8/29, Sahkar Nagar
Bhopal 462 039, India
Tel.: (0755) 2560438
Mo.: 9425600637
Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
1. Dr.Anil's Non-Negotiables in Right To education Bill
NCCRTECSS CONVENTION HELD AT DELHI ON 8TH JULY 2008
Non-Negotiable Elements (i.e. our bottom-line) in Draft RTE Bill 2008*
(As per the consensus arrived at the Convention)
Non-Negotiable Elements (i.e. our bottom-line) in Draft RTE Bill 2008*
(As per the consensus arrived at the Convention)
. The RTE Bill to be rooted in the framework of the COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM (CSS) FOUNDED ON NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHOOLS which will apply to all schools, including private unaided and aided schools, Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, the 6,000 Model Schools proposed in the XI Plan and all other special category schools operated by the Central and state/ UT governments. There will be no exceptions to this basic framework.
· The above framework will cover all schools from pre-primary stage upwards to Plus Two stage i.e. Class XII.
· This means that it will be mandatory for all schools to admit and provide education of equitable quality to all children residing within the neighbourhood, as specified by the prescribed authority, without any admission test, screening or parental interaction whatsoever – admission and receiving education of equitable quality in the neighbourhood school shall be a Fundamental Right of the child.
· The Neighbourhood of each school shall be delineated by the prescribed authority under the Act such as to optimize the socio-cultural diversity of the children who shall study and socialize together.
. Education to be COMPLETELY FREE for all children from pre-primary stage (of two years) to Class XII. Apart from free tuition, other requirements like uniforms, text books, teaching aids, tests and examinations and mid-day meals shall also be free of cost – for rich and poor alike. Further, the children shall not be liable to pay any charges whatsoever for facilities such as games, performing or fine arts, laboratories, library, computers & ICT and extra- or co-curricular activities (field trips, picnics etc.). No school shall be permitted to charge capitation fees and accept donations or contributions to maintenance or any other kind of funds – whether announced at the time of admissions or otherwise. For children of families below poverty line, there shall be adequate provision for payment of OPPORTUNITY COST (may be in the form of scholarships or stipends) to their parents or guardians for which some rational principles and practicable modalities may be evolved.
· No school shall have NORMS AND STANDARDS relating to infrastructure, teachers, pupil:teacher and classroom:teacher ratios, curriculum and teaching quality lower than that of the KENDRIYA VIDYALAYAS. No more than a five-year frame to be given to achieve this goal.
· Teacher qualifications and pre-service training as per NCTE norms. All teachers to be regular teachers with salaries and other service conditions as per Fifth Pay Commission. All other categories of teachers such as para-teachers and guest teachers to be done away with forthwith.
· No teacher to be deployed on NON-TEACHING DUTIES, INCLUDING THOSE PERTAINING TO ELECTIONS OR CENSUS, the only exception being disaster-relief duties, applicable in all schools (including private unaided schools) without any discrimination whatsoever.
· A COMMON LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICY to be followed in all categories of schools, while respecting Article 350A in case of “children belonging to linguistic minority groups.” Mother Tongue in pre-primary and early primary years (i.e. until Class II or III) and the State/ UT language from then onwards to Class XII to be the medium of education in all schools, including the private unaided schools. English of equitable quality to be introduced as a subject from Class III or IV onwards. From Class VI onwards, the third language to be introduced as a subject in the Hindi- and Non-Hindi-speaking states/ UTs as per the principles of the Three-Language Formula specified by 1986 policy and the Kothari Commission.
· ALL SCHOOLS WITHIN A STATE/ UT TO BE AFFILIATED TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION/ EXAMINATION. While following the National Curriculum Framework and its Core Curriculum, broadly along the lines of the 1986 policy, there must be ample provision for essential flexibility, diversity, innovation and creativity (which is lacking in the prevailing system) at the level of a District, Development Block or a school cluster or, whenever justified, even an individual school.
· Prohibition on the sale, lease or rent of the immoveable assets of the government, local body and government-aided schools.
· Financial allocations: The CUMULATIVE GAP building up since Kothari Commission’s recommendations in 1966 to be filled up within the next five years, followed by maintenance of annual educational expenditure at the level of at least 6% of GDP.
· A FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM to be attached to the RTE Bill.
· Prohibition on making profits out of schools or related professions/ activities.
· No School Vouchers.
· No Public-Private Partnership in school education.
· No foreign Boards of Education/ Examination and other assessment agencies to be allowed to operate in India.
· No Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in school education.
· School Education (including pre-primary education) not to be offered to WTO.
Notes:
Pre-primary stage shall comprise at least two years and will be located in the school. The teachers for this crucial stage of child development must have received proper pre-service training in childhood-oriented pedagogy (see 1986 policy, Sections 5.1 to 5.4). Facilities for this sector of teacher education hardly exist. Therefore, a nine-year time frame for developing such facilities will have to be conceived. In the meantime, short-term certificate courses would have to be organized through DIETs in order to meet the crisis. The Draft RTE Bill 2008 has attempted to confuse the issue by falsely equating it with “ICDS or other government programmes.”
In the third ‘Non-Negotiable’ regarding neighbourhood schools, education of equitable quality has been specifically mentioned since the private school lobby is likely to circumvent the provision of neighbourhoodness by setting up parallel sections, branches in slums or villages or even “afternoon schools” for the underprivileged children in the name of giving them special attention by falsely claiming their “academic backwardness.”
Several well-meaning groups have pointed out that the concept of neighbourhood partly loses its relevance in view of the existing socio-cultural “ghettoisation” (e.g. dalit, tribal and muslim localities in both rural and urban areas). This “ghettoisation” is increasing due to rising socio-cultural and communal tensions. It is precisely due to this concern that optimization of “socio-cultural diversity of the children” by the prescribed authority during delineation of the school neighbourhood becomes a crucial element in the guidelines to be incorporated in the Act.
OPPORTUNITY COST is a well accepted economic concept in social theory of educational planning, considering the cost to the poor parents for withdrawing their children from child labour. To be sure, it is indirectly practiced in various States/ UTs by providing scholarships or stipends to SCs, STs and other under-privileged children at the elementary stage. This is the rationale for its inclusion as an essential element in FREE EDUCATION.
[I am stopping here due to other pre-occupations at the moment. I can continue these Notes provided I receive positive feedback regarding their usefulness in our public campaign.]
July 12, 2008
Bhopal
*Drafted by Prof. Anil Sadgopal at the request of the NCCRTECSS Convention. Feedback may be sent to the NCCRTECSS Secretariat at Bhubaneswar at righttoeducation@yahoo.co.in and anilsadgopal@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
