|
|
This page is best Open in IE
only
State-of-the-Nation of
Right to Education: Section-12-1-C-CSF, March
2015
Progress towards RTE Act as on April 1st, 2011
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009: The Gazette of India Notification (August 27,
2009)
Monitoring RTE: A Set of Indicators
Model Rules for Right to Children Act
(Draft)
(Please consult and refer original document)
Right to Education Bill 2008
Right to Education Bill 2005: I
Right to Education Bill 2005: II
Right
to Education Bill 2005
Journey of Right to
Education: A Historical Perspective
Analysis of Outcomes in
Implementation of RTE Act: Woodrow Wilson School
of Public & International Affairs
From
right-to-Education to Right -to-Learning (N.
V. Varghese, 2015)
The Right to Education
(Final) Act, June 2014
Model Rules for Right to Children Act (Draft)
Requirement of Additional Teachers for Upper
Primary Schools/Sections as per RTE (PDF)
Requirement of Additional Teachers for Upper
Primary Schools/Sections as per RTE (Excel)
Education
in Parliament
Results Framework
Document: 2013-14, School Education
Results Framework
Document: 2013-14, Higher Education Education
Results Framework
Document: 2011-12, Department of School
Education & Literacy
State-of-the-Nation of
Right to Education: Section-12-1-C-CSF, March
2015
|
NEW DELHI: After the
euphoria comes the real test. The cost of
implementing the historic Right to Education Act
over the next five years by Centre
and states works out to a
whopping Rs 1.78 lakh crore.
The new law
will come into force from the next academic year
and since right to education is now a
fundamental right, it is mandatory on the part
of the government to provide what is demanded.
HRD ministry sources say the total
demand of Rs 1.78 lakh crore when finetuned will
only work out roughly to just one-third of the
staggering amount. They said that nearly Rs
50,000 crore can be provided to the kitty by the
Centre and states from the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
fund. This brings the demand down to Rs 1.28
lakh crore. The ministry expects that in the
12th Plan nearly Rs 60,000 crore will be
allocated to SSA. But this will still leave the
effective demand to Rs 68,000 crore. Then again,
Centre will have the tough task of persuading
the states to step forward to share the cost of
fulfilling the commitment.
On Friday,
HRD ministry sent the proposal to the finance
ministry and a copy to the 13th Finance
Commission for early perusal. But sources expect
a long winter of discussion and negotiation with
states, finance ministry and Planning Commission
before it can be finalised. The focus of
discussion will be the funding pattern of RTE.
Currently, SSA is funded by the Centre and
states in the ratio of 60:40. It will be 50:50
by the 12th Plan.
In case of RTE, chief
ministers are already gearing up to do a
collective bargaining. Madhya Pradesh chief
minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan has written to PM
Manmohan Singh demanding that the funding
pattern for RTE should be 90:10 between Centre
and states. He has circulated the letter to
other CMs as well. Earlier, Orissa CM Naveen
Patnaik had demanded a 75:25 funding pattern for
RTE between Centre and states. Bihar has also
said it cannot bear the extra burden since it is
already shelling out 25% of its annual budget on
education.
The demand for additional Rs
68,000 crore will go towards improving the
infrastructure in schools, student-teacher ratio
and in hiring more teachers. While SSA has a
student-teacher ratio of 40:1, RTE stipulates a
ratio of 30:1. The RTE law stipulates that from
class one to class five, if a school has 60
children there should be two teachers, for 61 to
90 children there should be three teachers, and
for 91 to 120 children there should be four
teachers. There are similar stipulations in case
of buildings, working days, play material, games
and sports equipment.
| |
THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO
FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL, 2009 FAILS
THE TEST OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate & Social
Activist
The Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill,
2009 (hereinafter referred to as RTE Bill, 2009)
passed by the Parliament on 4th
August 2009 though appears to be a progressive
legislation but on examination thereof, it is
not difficult to conclude that the same does not
stand the test of constitutional mandate
guaranteed under Article 14 (right to equality),
Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article
21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right
to social justice) of the Constitution of
India.
Undoubtedly,
some of the provisions of the RTE Bill, 2009 are
laudable. Section 3 talks of right to free and
compulsory education and admission in a
neighbourhood school. Section 4 talks of
admission of child in class appropriate to his
or her age. Sections 8 & 9 talk of
obligations of the government to provide
compulsory education to children. Section 12
talks of obligation of the unaided recognised
private schools to provide free seats to the
extent of 25% to the children of the
economically weaker sections. Section 13 (1)
talks of “no capitation fee” and “no screening
procedure” for admission. Section 14 talks of
admission without insisting upon production of
age proof. Section 16 talks of “no expulsion of
a child”. Section 17 bans corporal punishment.
Section 23 talks of formation of school
management committees. Section 23 ensures
recruitment of only qualified teachers. Section
25 talks of ensuring Pupil-Teacher Ratio as
specified in the schedule. Section 32 talks of
grievance redressal mechanism.
On the other
hand, several provisions of the RTE Bill, 2009
are meant to legalise and to perpetuate the
existing unjust and discriminatory school
education system based on socio-economic status.
Section 3 (b) defines “capitation fee” means any
kind of donation or contribution or payment
other than the fee notified by the school. The
import of this provision is that a school is
free to notify any amount of fee whether needed
or not and once it is notified, it will be
legal. The Bill does not provide any fee
regulatory mechanism to check the menace of
commercialisation of education. Moreover, the
right of every child to receive free and
compulsory education as guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution does
not depend on the capacity of the parents to
afford fee or not. Therefore, every child
whether studying in private or State-run school,
is entitled to free education. The State should
bear the entire expenses even of the children
studying in private-run schools. On the other
hand, Section 8 disentitles a child studying in
such private school even to claim from the State
the reimbursement of expenditure
incurred.
Section 2
(n) instead of permitting only same category of
schools for all the children, sanctifies
different categories of schools for the children
of different socio-economic status. Most
objectionable is; “a school belonging to
specified category”. Section 2 (p) defines
“specified category” in relation to a school,
means a school known as Kendriya Vidyalaya,
Sainik School or any other school having a
distinct character which may be specified by
notification, by the appropriate Government. How
can you have such a specified category of school
with ‘State Funding’ which does not provide
equal opportunity to all the children in the
matter of admission? That providing only 25% of
seats to the children of weaker sections in such
‘specified category of school’ is a cruel
joke.
Section 7
talks of sharing of financial responsibilities
between the Centre and the States. It appears
that the Central Government does not want to
provide funds to the States uniformly. The State
Governments cannot insist upon the Central
Government to provide funds more than what is
provided under Section 7 (3). The State
Governments have been made responsible to
provide funds for implementation of the Act. It
is submitted that unless the Central Government
takes upon itself to provide entire funds for
the implementation of the Act, the object of the
Act is not possible to be achieved, particularly
when the State Governments have publicly
declared their inability to implement the Act on
account of paucity of funds.
Section 10
talks of duty of parents to admit his child in
neighbourhood school. It is submitted that the
duty of parent is alright but where is the duty
of the State to bring the child to the school.
The State has completely absolved itself of such
duty. Section 13 (2) provides punishment with
fine against a school, if it is found violating
the provisions relating to ‘no capitation fee
and screening procedure for admission’.
Interestingly, the Central Government has lost
sight of the fact that if a school is punished
with fine; such amount of fine would simply be
passed on by the school to the children by
levying the same in the fee slip. It is
submitted that thereby it is the child and not
the school which would be punished. What is
required is the punishment with imprisonment and
not merely punishment with fine.
Section 26
permits the Government to keep the vacancies of
the teachers unfilled up to 10% of the total
sanctioned strength. It is a well known fact
that on average 10% of the teaching staff at a
time remains on leave for one reason or another.
Therefore, there is a need to have 10% extra
teaching staff instead of reducing it by 10% as
contemplated in the RTE Bill, 2009. Section 31
talks of monitoring of child’s right to
education by NCPCR. Experience with all the
Commissions including NCPCR is that all these
Commissions work like the department of the
Government. Moreover, the Government has not so
far appointed full strength members in the
NCPCR. It is submitted that the District Judge
of every district in the country, should be
entrusted with the work of monitoring of child’s
right to education. I am conscious of the fact
that the Hon’ble Judges are already burdened
with deciding so many pending cases but one can
not lose sight of the fact that the right to
education is a most precious human and
fundamental right and any further delay in
implementation of the same would be a great
peril to the nation. The Bill is also mute on
accountability of the authorities. Unless there
are provisions for the penalties against the
erring authorities at least similar to those
available in the Right to Information Act, 2005,
it is really doubtful if the authorities would
honestly perform their tasks.
Our
constitutional goal is to achieve a casteless
and classless society as has been highlighted by
a seven-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the recent decision in OBC reservation in
educational institutions case. The Government
should have brought a Bill which would have
directions towards casteless and classless
society. However, the Bill in the present form,
on the other hand, perpetuates the inequality
and unjust discrimination among children in the
matter of right to education. That while
expressing the above concerns regarding the
serious drawbacks of the RTE Bill, 2009
particularly when it fails the test of
Constitutional mandate, it cannot be over
emphasised that the passing of the Bill is a
welcome step. It will undoubtedly open the
Pandora’s Box for a national debate on the same
in the interest of the future of the
children.
07.08.2009
Lok Sabha
passes Right to Education Bill
August 4th,
2009
NEW DELHI - In a
historic step, the Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Bill, 2008.
The passing
of the Bill allows children aged between 6 to 14
years to avail free and compulsory education as
a fundamental right. The Bill, one of the
flagship programmes in the 100-dayagenda of the
UPA government, also earmarks 25 per cent seats
to weaker sections in private schools. Rajya
Sabha, the upper House of the Parliament, had
already cleared the Bill. The Lok Sabha put its
seal of approval on Tuesday. Human Resource
Minister Kapil Sibal, speaking in the Lok Sabha,
described the Bill as “harbinger of a new era
for children to meet the challenges of the 21st
century.
He said the Bill was a “historic
opportunity” to provide a better future to
children of the country as there was never such
a landmark legislation in the last 62 years,
since independence. “We as a nation cannot
afford our children not going to schools,” Sibal
asserted while noting that the measure details
the obligations of the Centre and the States for
providing free and compulsory education to
children.
Main
features of Right to Education 2009 Bill
-
The salient
features of the Right of Children for Free and
Compulsory Education Bill are -
- Free
and compulsory education to all children of
India in the six to 14 age group;
- No
child shall be held back, expelled, or required
to pass a board examination until completion of
elementary education;
- A child who
completes elementary education (upto class
shall be awarded a certificate;
- Calls
for a fixed student-teacher ratio;
- Will
apply to all of India except Jammu and
Kashmir;
- Provides for 25 percent
reservation for economically disadvantaged
communities in admission to Class One in all
private schools;
- Mandates improvement
in quality of education;
- School
teachers will need adequate professional degree
within five years or else will lose
job;
– School infrastructure (where there
is problem) to be improved in three years, else
recognition cancelled;
– Financial burden
will be shared between state and central
government
ALL INDIA FORUM FOR
RIGHT TO EDUCATION
306, Pleasant Apartments,
Bazarghat, Hyderabad-4
Phone no. 04023305266
Prof. Anil
Sadgopal
Prof. G.
Haragopal
Co-President
Co-President
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
An
Appeal
To,
July 22, 2009
Ms. Meira
Kumar,
Honorable Speaker,
Lok Sabha, Parliament of
India,
New Delhi
Dear Madam,
Sub: ‘The Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Bill,
2008’.
The
National Seminar on Right to Education and
Common School System held at Hyderabad on
21st and 22nd June 2009
urged upon the Central Government to replace the
pending ‘Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Bill, 2008’ with a Bill
drafted in the framework of Common School System
based on Neighborhood Schools. It is our
considered view that this is the only framework
which would ensure education of equitable
quality to all children in consonance with the
principles of equality before law (Article 14),
guarantee against discrimination by the State
(Article 15-1) and equal opportunity in public
employment (Article 16) as enshrined in the
Constitution. All member-organizations of the
All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE)
are opposing the Bill along with several other
democratic organizations around the country for
logically sound reasons (see below).
However,
to our utter disappointment, the UPA Government
did not heed the democratic voices in the
country. The appeal for wider public debate on
different provisions of the Bill has been
repeatedly turned down. The Parliamentary
Standing Committee also ignored democratic
submissions. The Bill was passed in the Rajya
Sabha on 20th July 2009 without any
consideration to the objections raised by some
learned members of the House. The Union
Government is rushing ahead with its 100-day
neo-liberal agenda embedded in privatization and
commercialization of education. As a last resort
we appeal you and the members of the Lok Sabha
to seriously ponder over our objections to the
Bill before proceeding further with it. You
would agree, we believe, that such a Bill will
affect a nation for generations and petty
political considerations must not be allowed to
undermine it.
We
bring to your notice that the Bill, instead of
giving fundamental right to children, deprives
them of the fundamental right already given to
them by the Supreme Court through the
Unnikrishnan Judgment (1993). Indeed, this Bill
amounts to being not only anti-Constitutional,
anti-educational and anti-child but also
promoter of unabashed privatization and
commercialization of school education.
The
Supreme Court, through its historic Unnikrishnan
Judgment (1993), declared ‘free and compulsory
education’ a fundamental Right of all children
until they complete the age of fourteen years
(including the children below six years age) by
reading Article 45 of Part IV of the
Constitution in conjunction with Article 21
(Right to Life) of Part III. The pending Bill,
if enacted, will result in (a) 17 crore children
below six years of age losing their fundamental
right to balanced nutrition, health care and
preprimary education; and (b) the government
being assigned arbitrary powers to provide free
and compulsory education to the 19 crore
children in the 6-14 year age group “in
such
manner as the state may by law determine
“,
just as the government has been doing for the
past sixty years.
We hereby
underline the following serious lacunae and
contradictions in the Bill.
This
Bill
,
·
allows the authorities to dilute
the meaning of Free Education in an ad-hoc
manner;
·
distorts the concept of
Neighborhood School recommended by the Kothari
Commission (1966) and resolved by the Parliament
in the National Policy on Education-1986 (as
modified in 1992), thereby authorizing the
government to compel the poor children to study
in inferior quality schools;
·
maintains Sarva Sikhsha Abhiyan’s
discriminatory multi-layered school system;
·
permits the government to
build schools of entirely unacceptable,
ambiguous and sub-standard norms and standards;
·
continues with inferior quality
education for almost three-fourths of the
children, particularly girls and disadvantaged;
·
undermines the universally
accepted pedagogic role of mother tongue in
acquiring knowledge and learning languages other
than one’s mother tongue, including English;
·
discriminates between the children
studying in government schools and the private
unaided schools in various ways. This is bound
to lead to further deterioration of the quality
of education in the government schools, making
private schools, both aided and un-aided even
more expensive and inaccessible to a wide
section of the society. The worst sufferers of
such discrimination will be the girls, thereby
leading to increased gender disparity;
·
aims at demolishing the government
school system under the pretext of providing
free education to the weaker sections on 25% of
the seats in private schools. On several grounds
it is clear that this misconceived provision
would not give any benefit whatsoever to the
deprived children even in the short term;
·
legitimizes, through the
above-named provision of 25% reservation in
private schools, the ‘free market’ policy of
school vouchers and Public Private
Partnership;
·
refuses, by not including the
financial estimates for implementation of the
Bill in the Financial Memorandum, to explicitly
accept the full obligations of the Bill and
·
promotes unregulated privatization
and commercialization of school education.
The following
three cynical objectives of the central
government can be identified in tabling such a
misconceived Bill:
First, abdicating its Constitutional
obligation for providing free and compulsory
education of equitable quality;
Second,
demolishing the government school system, except
the schools of specified categories (Kendriya
Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, XI plan’s 6,000
model schools, and similar elite schools of the
States/UT governments); and
Third,
increasing the pace of privatization and
commercialization of school education.
We
have been for long urging upon the Union
Government to,
1.
replace the pending Bill with a new Bill
drafted in the framework of the Common School
System based on neighborhood Schools in
consonance with the basic spirit and principles
enshrined in the Constitution;
2.
review the 86th constitutional
amendment Act (2002) with a view to providing a
fundamental right to free and compulsory
education of equitable quality to all children
until the age of eighteen years i.e. until class
XII without any conditionality whatsoever;
3.
incorporate a Constitutional guarantee
within the Bill for providing adequate funding
for the entire school system. This is precisely
the implication of a fundamental right.
4.
include in the Bill a provision to
completely ban all forms of privatization and
commercialization of education, especially
Public Private Partnership, adoption of schools
by private agencies and voucher schools;
5.
hold public hearings in all district
headquarters of the country in a democratic and
transparent manner in the process of drafting a
new Bill.
As is submitted to
you in the beginning, the Union Government is
neither heeding the democratic voices nor is not
responding to the widely articulated concerns.
We, therefore, request you to either send the
Bill to a select committee or return the Bill to
the Parliamentary Standing Committee with
directions to hold public hearings in all
district headquarters of the country in a
democratic and transparent manner in order to
make essential changes in the present Bill or
draft a new Bill afresh in consonance with the
basic spirit and the fundamental principles
enshrined in the Constitution and Supreme
Court’s Unnikrishnan Judgment.
With hope and trust for your
urgent intervention,
Sincerely Yours,
Sd./-
Prof. Anil
Sadgopal
Prof. G. Haragopal
Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Co-Presidents, All India Forum for
Right to Education
Ravi
Rai
Niraj
General
Secretary,
Convenor, Delhi State
All India Students
Association
Vidyarthi Yuvjan Sabha
Copies to:
1.
Prime Minister of India
2.
Minister of Human Resources
Development
3.
Leaders of Opposition Parties
4.
Members of Lok Sabha
5.
Chairperson, National Commission for
Human Rights
6.
Chairperson, National Commission for
Protection of Child Rights
Right to
Education by Vinod Raina
Seminar, January
2009
THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS
Anil
Sadgopal
Posted: 2008-11-09
00:03:24+05:30 IST
Updated: Nov 09, 2008 at
0003 hrs IST
These are election times
in several states. These are bad times for
government school children. Their teachers have
been frequently pulled out of schools in recent
weeks for cross-checking voter lists and
election training. Essentially no teaching will
take place for a week around the polling date.
Earlier this year, the teachers were busy
updating voter lists. And then there are
panchayat and municipal elections. The private
school children of course do not suffer such
loss of teaching. Would this discrimination stop
when the Parliament passes the Right to
Education Bill, 2008, recently approved by the
Central Cabinet? Of course not! On the contrary,
it will be legitimised since the Bill provides
for deployment of government teachers for
“decennial census, election to Local
Authorities, State Legislatures and Parliament
and disaster relief duties.” Government school
children will continue to sacrifice their
education to keep the Indian democracy alive,
while the private school children will receive
education undisturbed.
This is
certainly not an isolated example of the Bill’s
discriminatory character. Take the case of
pre-primary education (kindergarten, nursery)
considered to be critical for preparing children
for elementary education. The Bill indulges in
falsehood when it says that pre-primary
education will be provided in government schools
except “if such facilities are not already being
provided, through Integrated Child Development
Services (ICDS) or other government programmes,
in proximity to such schools.” Who does not know
that ICDS (or its anganwadis) is not even
designed to provide pre-primary education? The
Bill will thus ensure that the majority of the
poor children (about three-fourth of the child
population) will continue to be denied
pre-primary education by the clever use of ICDS
as an alibi!
The proponents
of the Bill, especially the internationally
funded NGOs, make much out of the provision of
25% reservation in the private schools for the
disadvantaged children. Closer examination
reveals a different story. As per the Seventh
Educational Survey, about four crore children
out of 19 crore in the 6-14 age group are
currently studying in private schools at the
elementary stage (class I-VIII). The above
provision will create space for one crore for
which the private schools will be reimbursed for
the tuition fees. Assuming that these schools
are providing quality education, the provision
helps only a minority of the underprivileged.
What is then the Bill’s vision of quality
education for the remaining 15 crores? They will
continue to receive education through a
multi-layered school system with each social
segment in a separate layer, the much-acclaimed
norms and standards in the Bill’s Schedule
notwithstanding.
Back to the 25%
provision. Everybody knows that, apart from the
tuition fees, the private school child has to
shell out money for a range of items throughout
the year — expensive uniform and shoes, extra
textbooks, picnic and extra-curricular charges,
computer fees etc. Who will pay for that? Why
has the Bill not thought of changing the elitist
character of these schools that violate the
educational principles enunciated by Phule,
Tagore and Gandhi? Clearly, the Bill lacks the
vision of what constitutes quality in relation
to India’s needs. That, however, is another
debate.
Let us assume
that the underprivileged is able to somehow
sustain all these odds all the way until class
VIII. This is when the government support for
her tuition will come to an end. In such a
situation, what would the school do? Throw the
child out? Where would she go for high school
education? May be nowhere, since that is not
part of her Fundamental Right!
To be sure,
there is a hidden political agenda in this 25%
provision. Whenever the government sets up high
profile elite schools — the centrally sponsored
Kendriya or Navodaya Vidyalayas and the XI
Plan’s 6,000 model schools or the state
governments’ Pratibha Vidyalayas (Delhi),
Utkrishta Vidyalayas (Madhya Pradesh) or
residential schools (Andhra Pradesh) — the
regular schools are deprived of funds and good
teachers alike. People vie against each other to
get their children admitted, using their
political contacts, bureaucratic pressure or
even bribes. The result: poor communities are
divided and disempowered. This sop will thus
further divert political attention away from the
ongoing struggle for education of equitable
quality through a Common School System.
A word on the
media hype on the financial allocation that the
Bill promises. First, the Kothari Commission
(1964-66) recommended that 6% of GDP must be
invested on education (including higher
education) by 1986 and then maintained at that
level. We never got there. Since 1991, the
educational expenditure as percentage of GDP has
been steadily declining and this is now down to
3.5% of GDP. Without fulfilling this cumulative
gap, how does the government hope to provide
quality education?
Second, the
government knows how to cut corners. In its
estimate of Rs 2,28,680 crores required for
implementing the Bill in seven years’ time
starting in 2008-09, there are plenty of clues
how this will be achieved. Look, for instance,
at the teachers’ salaries. As per the Bill, the
primary school teachers shall be paid a monthly
salary of Rs 6,000 and those of the upper
primary (class VI-VIII) stage shall receive a
monthly emolument of Rs. 8,000. At present, as
per Fifth Pay Commission, the gross monthly
emolument of the primary school teachers (PRT
Grade) and the upper primary teacher (TGT Grade)
is respectively Rs 12,400 and Rs 15,000 at the
entry point. The cat is out of the bag. The
government plans to replace all the regular
teachers (qualified and trained as per NCTE
norms) by under-qualified and untrained teachers
appointed on short-term contracts. While the low
quality teachers will teach in government
schools, the private school children will be
taught by properly qualified teachers whose
pre-service training ironically has been
subsidised with public funds. Combine this with
the prescribed pupil:teacher ratio of 40:1 (Cuba
has 20:1) and you have a perfect recipe for low
quality education for the masses. The entire
financial computation is loaded with such
discriminatory logic.
Can there be a
Fundamental Right to unequal and inferior
education? The central government’s audible
answer: Yes, indeed! Professor Amartya Sen told
the Confederation of Indian Industries in
December 2007 that school education can be
funded only by the state. No advanced country in
the world has ever been able to provide
universal quality education by negating or
undervaluing its public-funded education system.
This is true for all the G-8 countries,
including the USA. Defying this universal
experience, the Right to Education Bill is
daring to undo the history. Amen!
The writer is
an educationist
Tehelka
C
For Commerce
A new
Bill seeks to put the constitutional promise of
free and quality education for all at the mercy
of market forces, warns
ANIL
SADGOPAL
TODAY,
FOR example, if a parent petitions the Court
seeking a pupil:teacher ratio of 1:30 instead of
1:40, or 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 14 years of age a
Fundamental Right to Education. The Court
contended that the Fundamental Right to Life
(Article 21) of the Constitution should be read
in “harmonious construction” with the Directive
in Article 45 to provide Free and Compulsory
Education to children of 0-14 years, including
those below six years of age. By implication
then, free and equitable education became their
fundamental right.
This
judicial framework will be dismantled once the
current 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 the 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, successive governments at the Centre have
tried to undo the impact of the Unnikrishnan
judgment; to dilute and distort the meaning of
the fundamental right to education. This
culminated in the 86th Constitutional Amendment
Act (2002). The Act inserted a new Article (21A)
which limited the fundamental right to the 6-14
age group, thereby disentitling 17 crore
children below six years of their right to
nutrition, health and preprimary education. It
further stated that free and compulsory
education shall be provided “in such manner as
the State may, by law, determine.” This
conditionality enables the State to circumscribe
the fundamental right of even the 6-14 age
group.
The issue
of Right to Education is critically linked to
the Common School System founded on the
principle of ‘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 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 multilayered school
system. The Draft Bill legitimises the schools
that promote inequality, such as the elite
government schools (eg. Kendriya Vidyalayas) and
private unaided schools. This reflects in its
provision of 25 percent reservation of seats in
such schools for purportedly ‘free’ education of
the weaker sections from the neighbourhood. For
75 percent of admitted children, both the
principle of neighbourhood and the fundamental
right to free education stand violated. The 25
percent 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 the Finance Minister, Planning
Commission’s Deputy Chairman, PM’s Economic
Advisory Council Chairman and the Human Resource
Development Minister. The HLG concluded that the
Centre lacked resources for implementing the RTE
Bill and that it should primarily be 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 this
author’s 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, by 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 framework leaning towards
neo-liberal policies. 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 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 adjusting
itself to 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.
•
|
Dirty Dozen of the Draft Right to
Education, 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 pre-primary
education by falsely equating it with Integrated
Child Development Scheme (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.
|
| | | | |
Volume 23 - Issue 15 :: Jul.
29-Aug. 11, 2006
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers
of THE HINDU
Education for few
JAYATI GHOSH
|
The new
education bill proposed by the UPA will exclude disadvantaged
groups from quality schooling and pass the burden to cash-strapped
State governments.
|
In all the often heated
debates about the strategy of development for India, there is one issue
on which there seems to be consensus among all - the need to provide
universal and good quality education at school-level to all our
children. There is good reason for this consensus, which emerges from
some very different initial positions with respect to other matters of
society and economics. At one level, education is a fundamental human
right, without which capabilities for a decent life and effective
participation in society are less likely to be developed. Therefore, all
our citizens deserve equitable access to a public school education
system of reasonable quality.
There is the equally
important point about the nature of the society we wish to have. The
primary purpose of education is to build a truly humane society -
democratic and egalitarian, tolerant of diversity and yet with some
shared human values - and to allow all citizens to unleash their full
potential and live with dignity.
This implies that school
education up to a certain level (ideally 10 or 12 years) must be
accessible to all, and that differences in the quality of provision
should not be such that they create social inequalities or
monopolisation by any group.
But even those who are
less likely to adopt a rights-based approach to development or accept
the importance of universal education for a good society, still
recognise the critical significance of investing in education. This is
because they know that for sustained growth and all-round economic
progress, an educated labour force is absolutely essential. And as
economic tasks become more complex, interdependent and require different
kinds of literacy and numeracy, the importance of higher levels of
education also grows. All the current talk of creating a "knowledge
society" is based on the realisation that education must be a major
focus of public intervention.
Therefore, until quite
recently it was the case that even those who otherwise debunked public
expenditure in general, accepted the need for public spending on and
provision of basic education. Additionally, in recent times, some of the
recognition of the need for more investment in education is also because
of the buzz about the "demographic dividend".
This is the fact that our
relatively young population can become a huge asset when most of the
rest of the world's population is aging, and this difference in
demographic structure can create a large positive potential for faster
growth. (Of course, this in turn presupposes that productive work can be
found for all of those of working age.)
Yet it is precisely in the
sphere of ensuring equitable access to quality education for our people
that the development project in India has been conspicuously lacking
thus far. Even today, the official gross enrolment ratios for children
aged between six and 14 is around 80 per cent, and effective enrolment
is much less. Currently, only 56 per cent of children aged between five
and nine are attending school, according to Census data.
More tellingly, dropout
rates are very high; less than half of the children who join Class I
actually complete Class VIII, and much less than 10 per cent pass the
higher secondary examination. The situation is even worse because of
social and economic divisions, which reduce access. For example, more
than 80 per cent of Scheduled Caste girls and 90 per cent of Scheduled
Tribe girls who join Class I do not complete Class X.
This is largely because of
huge under provision and poor quality provision in the government school
system, such that those who cannot afford to attend private schools are
either unable or unwilling to attend school, and are often deprived of
access altogether.
Some of this is because of
the very large infrastructure gaps in the public education system in the
country. There are still large numbers of villages and urban settlements
without government schools in the approachable vicinity.
There is also substantial
overcrowding in existing schools. According to the National Sample
Survey, more than 30 per cent of primary schools do not have any proper
buildings, and another 20 per cent function out of only one room, which
clearly affects both the quality and effectiveness of teaching in such
schools. The average number of instructional classrooms across all
schools is only two.
The inadequacy of other
basic infrastructure (separate toilets for girls and boys, clean
drinking water supply, electrical fittings and fans and so on) not to
mention advanced teaching aids, including computers, is also
well-established not only for many primary schools but also for a
substantial proportion of secondary schools and institutions of higher
learning.
Then of course there is
the shortage of teachers, which forces many students at different levels
to be taught by one teacher. According to a study by the National
Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, even now, up to 13
per cent of all elementary schools are single-teacher schools. Nearly 10
per cent of schools do not have even one blackboard. More than half do
not have a book bank, not to mention a library. Only 7 per cent of
schools have computers.
Part of the reason for
this abysmal state of affairs is that there was no compulsion upon
either Central or State governments to provide universal education. The
faith expressed in Article 45 of the Constitution, making a commitment
of the state to provide free and compulsory education to children up to
14 years of age, did not translate into any justiciable right. Most
critically, successive versions of draft legislation have failed to make
it a justiciable right or to ensure the financial resources for the
government to provide universal schooling.
It is against this
background that the Right to Education Bill, 2005, was formulated. This
Bill has had a tortuous history. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act,
passed in 2002, inserted Article 21A in Part III (Fundamental Rights)
which declared that "the state shall provide free and compulsory
education to all children of the age 6-14 years in such manner as the
state may by law determine." This set the stage for the Right to
Education Bill. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government
provided flawed draft Bills which effectively legitimised different
"streams" of education, with low quality provision for underprivileged
sections, and heavy reliance on privatisation.
The United Progressive
Alliance (UPA) government in turn provided a more acceptable Bill, which
still had a number of problems and also diluted the right to education
in several ways. However, it also had certain strengths, such as some
move towards a common schooling system by which all schools, including
private schools, would have to take 25 per cent of students from among
underprivileged children in the vicinity. This reflected the
recommendations of the Education Commission in the 1960s that bringing
different social classes and groups together would promote an
egalitarian and integrated society.
However, this draft Bill
gathered dust, apparently in the Prime Minister's Office, for more than
10 months, and was not introduced in successive sessions of Parliament.
It has now come to light that the Central government has decided to
shelve this altogether, and instead has formulated a model Bill which
has been sent to all State governments for them to enact.
Further, according to the
letter sent by the Secretary for School Education to the State
governments, only States which adopt the model bill in toto will
continue to receive 75 per cent funding for the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan -
all others will have the Central allocation cut to 50 per cent!
Quite apart from the
undemocratic nature of this offer, this reneges on the commitment made
in the Constitutional Amendment, since the Central government is now
taking no financial responsibility for ensuring the right to education.
It is ridiculous to expect cash-strapped State governments to be able to
provide the resources for this. Only the Central government can and must
provide the relatively large financial outlays that are required to meet
this absolutely essential public commitment.
The model Bill that has
been proposed is even more appalling - it removes any mention of common
schooling, places no requirements upon private schools, and does not
actually recognise the right to education. It says that any
parents/guardians who choose to admit their children to a non-free quota
in a school (for whatever reason, for however short a time) shall not
have any claim on the State for free education for their children.
It allows for
"alternative" non-formal education for children for reasons of
disability, or disadvantage, or nature of occupation of parents, thereby
creating the possibilities for all sorts of exclusion by class and
social group. In sum, it is a Bill of exclusion rather than inclusion, a
complete denial of rights.
So here we have an
extraordinary situation - a Central government that has publicly
committed to ensuring the right to education, working surreptitiously
and bypassing Parliament in order to push State-level legislation which
completely undermines the notion of that right.
The irony is that this is
in all probability driven by the same people who have been opposing
caste-based quotas in higher education, on the grounds that it is first
necessary to ensure access to quality school education to disadvantaged
groups. Unfortunately, while increasing and univeralising access to
quality education are critical for the health of our society and its
future, we still have to contend with elites and an establishment who
are determined to prevent it.
The seminar titled 'Right
to Education-Actions Now' was organised by the Confederation of Indian
Industry (CII), Shiksha India, Aspen Institute and Institute of Quality,
on 19th December, 2007 in Maurya Sheraton, New Delhi, India. The main
sponsors of the seminar were: Ambuja Cement, Bajaj Group of Companies,
Bharti, GMMCO, Haldia, Thermax, Sona, SRF, Organosys and Patton.
The centre of attraction
of this seminar was Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, who called for
accountability in delivery of elementary education and public healthcare
services, effective use of resources and co-operation with unions in
these sectors. Prof. Sen underlined the importance of expansion of
inclusive growth. He suggested deployment of more economic resources in
education and better organisation of public services. Prof. Sen said
that resources generated from economic growth should be used for public
services and public goods in general, rather than being absorbed only in
private consumption. He also highlighted the issue of diversity. He said
that India should ensure efficiency and accountability in delivery of
public services through organisational reforms. Despite economic
reforms, the slowness of progress on school education has been taking
much longer to remedy. He observed that there has been some reduction in
the proportion of poverty-stricken people. But the process could have
been much faster if growth achievements are combined with ways and means
of more widespread sharing of economic opportunities. Prof. Sen said
that India has been catching up with China in life expectancy and infant
mortality, but there is still a long way to go. Prof. Sen expressed
concern at the shocking incidence of absenteeism and neglect on the part
of many teachers, who come from elite background and who care less for
students from disadvantaged sections of the society. He pointed out the
poor state of school inspection system in India. To tackle these
problems, he suggested positive collaboration with other social groups
and particularly the unions of primary school teachers and health care
workers. He said that an educated population can make even better use of
democracy. He talked on the importance of democracy. He asked for the
need for female literacy as it can have positive impact on their
economic and social status. He said that education can have powerful
effects on quality of life of even the poorest of the poor. Prof.
Amartya Sen mentioned that the nature of education is extremely
relative. He also praised the $100 computers-for-kids initiative by MIT
Media Lab. He said that peer learning is essential. He said that the
quality of food provided in the mid-day meal scheme (MDM) is poor in
certain states of India. He said that there is need for looking at
education for producing skilled labour force, which can be tapped by the
IT, ITeS and other services sector. He said that poor people should be
provided coupons, which can be helpful in accessing education. He said
that education is something more than literacy. He mentioned that in
Bangladesh, there is a law which says that the wife of every husband
should read and write.
Rakesh said that
public-private partnership for constructing school buildings is need of
the day. He said that there is need for concentrating on the 'Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan'. Vijay Bhakara talked on the accountability of the
education sector. He said that there is need for measuring the quality
of education. He mentioned about one census assessment report on quality
of education. He said that the competency level of the children needs to
be assessed, which has happened in Karnataka, India. He also mentioned
about the School Adoption Scheme, which is running in Karnataka. Kalyan
Banerji said that the quality of textbook is very poor in India. There
is thus the need for good quality content, so that it enhances the
quality of the children-the future of India. S Bhattacharya said that
there is need for better implementation of already existing educational
schemes. Governmental schemes cannot be substituted by other
initiatives. Teachers' commitment and empowerment is extremely
essential. India produces less number of engineers. There is a need to
check why more and more students are taking commerce and management
related subjects, instead of science/ technology. There is also the need
to see why the system of Aanganwadi has collapsed in most states of
India. He also mentioned that the pre-nursery school education system
has collapsed. Drop-out is happening due to socio-economic reasons, he
added. Students coming from rural background have hidden talents.
Teachers must have the potential to tap the talent present in school
children. There is also need to assess why there exists much focus only
on English. He said that there is need to look at how to ensure
accountability in educational schemes. S Bhattacharya said that the
unhealthy competition in education need to be reduced. One of the
biggest problem in Rajasthan is the transfer policy for teachers since
every teacher want to be transfered to his/her native place.
However, Rajasthan has
performed well in implementing the mid-day meal scheme successfully.
During the 11th Five Year Plan, more allocation of financial resources
with have been made on education, he added. He asked for passing of the
Right to Education Bill by the Parliament of India. Jamshyd Godrej,
Chairman, Shiksha India, talked on the importance of e-Learning tools to
impart education at primary and secondary levels. He asked for the need
of inputs from all sections of the population in order to make concrete
progress in the field of education. He said that CII has been making
positive efforts to promote education.
Gautam Thapar,
Vice-Chairman, The Aspen Institute India, said, "In the context of
globalisation, education assumes greater meaning. Greatness of a nation
should not be measured by its ranking in global economic order, but by
its ability to provide quality education. If we don't address the issue
of education, our demographic dividend may turn into demographic
disaster." He added that the Aspen Institute India is ready to
contribute to the promotion of education. The day-long session was
attended by 200 participants from Indian industry, NGOs, principals of
various schools across the county, teachers and students. The session
included an interactive session with Prof. Sen during which he dwelt on
an array of issues. The participants discussed future course of action
to improve elementary education in India. Madhav talked on the need for
educational initiative in rural India. He said that there is need for
employing the rural unemployed in educational sector. In this respect,
the educational initiative of the the NGO Pratham, was mentioned by him.
But there is need for scalability of the Pratham initiative, he said.
Anil Bordia, talked about the need for working with the Anganwadi
workers. He mentioned about the Lok Jumbish. There is need for
contribution by the citizens, he said. Education should not be made
absolutely free, he added.
During the conference it
was mentioned that the National Sample Survey is one of the the best
surveys conducted by the Government of India, which provides a different
picture than the statistics provided by the Department of Education.
Motivation of teacher is extremely important for having a good quality
education system. There is the need for developing a transparent and
accountable institutions in the area of education. The focus of the
discussion was on the mid day meal scheme and the purposes it
serves.
During the post lunch
session, group discussions (comprising more than 15 groups) were held,
which revolved around several topics. Suggestions were provided by
various groups on various topics, which include: ensuring better school
adoption system, bridging gaps in education in rural India, developing
teacher skills, team learning, etc.
* The article have
been jointly written by Narinder Bhatia, Anaam Sharma and Shambhu
Ghatak
|
Editorial
TIMES
OF INDIA
|
|
School For
All
3 Nov 2008, 0032 hrs
IST
|
|
|
|
India’s greatest wealth lies in
its human resources. Universal schooling of decent quality could
be the single biggest move it makes towards future
prosperity. Towards this end the
government has mooted a Right to Education Bill which promises
free education for every child in the 6-14 age group. But it
remains cagey about details, citing the Election Commission’s
model code as the reason for not disclosing the full text.
Education requires substantive, not just symbolic action.
Merely passing laws, without sustained political attention that
plugs yawning financial and administrative gaps in the school
sector, is going to fail. One of the problems of taking a purely
legislative view is to define who will be held responsible if a
child doesn’t attend school. Will it be the local body, the state
government, the Centre, the child’s guardians? There is plenty of
scope for passing the buck, and we don’t have the full details of
the Bill.
A related problem is to set out clearly who will
pick up the bill for universal education, estimated to cost Rs
55,000 crore a year to implement. It’s supposed to be split
between Centre and states, but the precise formula for doing so —
and whether states are on-board with the scheme — is unknown. The
most controversial provision of the Bill is to drag the private
sector in, by imposing an obligation on private schools to take in
at least 25 per cent of its students from disadvantaged
backgrounds.
Their fees will supposedly be paid by the
government, a promise it’s unlikely to keep. Providing free
education for all should be unambiguously the government’s
responsibility. Countries haven’t made rapid strides towards
universal literacy by palming off the responsibility on the
private sector. That will stunt the growth of the private sector
rather than lead to universal literacy.
The private
sector, however, can act as a force multiplier and take some of
the government’s burden off if the right incentives are given to
it. For that to happen, it must be allowed to run on private
sector principles. Corporates should be encouraged to set up their
own chains of branded schools, which would both serve their human
resource needs and disseminate quality education across the
country.
To draw in the best professionals it’s necessary
to legitimise profits in education and provide autonomy to the
private sector. The government should also envisage private-public
collaborations where it throws in some combination of money, land,
scholarships and tax breaks, but leaves the management of schools
in professional hands. Out-of-the-box thinking is called for to
provide education the big bang it sorely needs.
|
Right to Education Bill introduced in
RS
16 Dec
2008, 0424 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: Almost six years after Parliament
passed the 86th Constitutional Amendment, the Centre on Monday
introduced the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Bill in the Rajya
Sabha. The 86th Amendment made free and compulsory education for
children between the age of 6 and 14 years, a fundamental right.
The proposed legislation provides a blueprint for systemic
reforms in the elementary education. It is aimed to provide quality
education. It promises to counter the growing lobby for the
privatisation of school education. The legislation is a step towards the
common school system, first proposed by the Kothari Commission.
However, the passage of the Bill is not expected to be easy. The
biggest hurdle will come from the growing and influential private
players in education sector and their votaries among the country’s
political leadership.
The statement of object and reasons
clearly explains the aim of the legislation: “The proposed legislation
is anchored in the belief that the values of equality, social justice
and democracy and the creation of a just and humane society can be
achieved only through provision of inclusive elementary education to
all. The provision of free and compulsory education of satisfactory
quality to children from disadvantaged and weaker sections is,
therefore, not merely the responsibility if schools run or supported by
the appropriate governments, but also of schools which are not dependent
on government funds.”
The private school lobby has consistently
called for the opening up of the education sector, allowing “for profit”
organisation to play a role on the grounds that government schools can’t
provide quality education.
The Bill makes it mandatory for
private unaided schools to set aside 25% of their annual intake at the
entry level (standard I) for disadvantaged children in the school’s
neighbourhood. This effort is in keeping with Article 15(5), which
allows the state to make special provisions for advancement for
disadvantaged groups. In keeping with Article 29 and Article 30,
minority institutions will be exempt from this exercise.
The
Bill also bars capitation fees, making it a punishable offence with
fines “up to ten times of the capitation fee charged”. It also makes
screening of students a punishable offence, fees would be as high as Rs
25,000 for the first contravention, and Rs 50,000 for subsequent
contravention. none of this is expected to sit well with the private
school lobby.
Despite the unanimous support for the move to make
the right to education a fundamental right, the enabling RTE legislation
hasn’t had an easy passage. Work on the RTE was started by the NDA
government soon after Parliament passed the constitutional amendment in
December 2002. The first delay came when the NDA was voted out of power
in May 2004. Work on the RTE was then taken up by the Kapil Sibal’s
committee of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE).
The
Sibal draft slated the financial implications, estimated by the then
National Institute of Education Planning and Administration (NIEPA), at
a minimum of Rs 3,21,196 crore to a maximum Rs 4,36,458.5 crore over six
years. This is where the proposed legislation ran into trouble.
The question of funding was to hold up the bill for the next
four and half years. Over the next four and a half years, the ministry
of human resource development worked to bring down the financial
implication of the bill. Finally, bringing it down to Rs 48,000 for a
four-year period.
Strangely enough, the Bill in its final form
does not have any explicit financial implications. The financial
memorandum simply states: “It is not possible to quantify the financial
requirement on this account at this stage.
However, the expenditure
on provision of funds by the Central government would be met from the
Consolidated Fund of India through annual budgetary provision”. The
question then is why was the bill delayed, when the financial
implications were never part of the legislation.
Bill on free and compulsory education introduced in
RS
1
5 Dec 2008, 2250 hrs
IST, TNN
NEW DELHI: Children from
even the poorest families can hope to study in good schools with the
government on Monday introducing a bill in Rajya
Sabha for free and compulsory elementary
education with a provision that schools will have to keep aside 25%
seats in class 1 for such students.
Minister of state for human
resource development M A Fatmi introduced a bill which seeks to provide
for free and compulsory education to all children between 6-14 years.
According to the `Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Bill, 2008', every school will have to earmark at least 25%
seats in class 1 for free and compulsory elementary education.
The bill seeks to do away with the practice of schools taking
capitation fees before admission and subjecting the child or parents to
any screening procedure.
The bill also seeks to ban private
tuition by teachers and ensure that no child is subjected to physical
punishment or mental harassment, warning that whoever contravened the
provisions would be liable to disciplinary action.
At the same
time, the bill said it shall be the duty of every parent or guardian to
admit the child to a neighbourhood school for elementary education and
added that no child should be denied admission for lack of age proof.
Seeking to carry out radical changes in the primary education
pattern, the bill states that no child shall be required to pass any
Board examination till completion of elementary education.
Noting that the goal of Universal Elementary Education (UEE)
continued to remain elusive, the statement of objects and reasons said,
"The number of children, particularly children from disadvantaged groups
and weaker sections, who drop out of school before completing elementary
education remains very large."
The bill warned that if any
school failed to fulfil the norms, its recognition would be withdrawn
and if any person still continued to run the school, he or she would be
liable to pay upto Rs 1 lakh fine.
No school, other than a
school established, owned or controlled by the government or the local
authority, shall, after the commencement of the Act, be established or
will function without obtaining a certificate or recognition from such
authority, it said.
The bill said that no teacher shall be
deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the population
census, disaster relief work or duties relating to elections to the
local authority, assembly or Parliament.
"Provision of free and
compulsory education of satisfactory quality to children from
disadvantaged and weaker sections is, therefore, not merely the
responsibility of schools run or supported by the appropriate
governments but also of schools which are not dependent on government
funds," the statement said.
|
|