As promised by the Union HRD minister to enact the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, which seeks to make education a fundamental right of every child in the age group of six to 14 years has been passed in the Rajya Sabha unanimously, however, it needs some observation.
It's also important that any change in the policy should ensure that it is properly debated; hence same should be with respect to the Right to Education Bill. Before it is tabled in the Lok Sabha and passed certain critical aspects of this Bill needs to be reviewed and may be amended because in its present form the Bill suffers from some anomalies which must be given due consideration. It is important that the Bill finds remedies for all the mentioned glaring lacunae.
•Children in the age group 0-6 years not covered: This bill does not institutionalize Early Childhood Education (Age Group of 0 – 6) an important step towards universalisation of early childhood care & education (pre-primary education) as a significant step towards Universalisation of Elementary education. This is in contradiction to the Supreme Court's (Unnikrishnan) judgment in 1993, giving all children up to 14 years of age a Fundamental Right to Education. This is also in contradiction to India's own commitment at the Jomtien Conference (1990), acknowledging expansion of early childhood care and development activities as an integral part of the 'Education for All' objectives. This bill has not recognised the importance of the early years.
• This Bill has again failed to promote a common school system: The Bill states that "it will be the responsibility of the state to provide free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school within a period of three years from the commencement of the Bill". There is no provision to create an equitable infrastructure to provide an equitable education. This Bill will not be able to meet its obligations unless a common school system encompassing all types of schools is envisaged with effective monitoring mechanisms to ensure quality of education. The State Boards could be fitted into this frame.
• Children with disabilities: The Bill states "children with severe or profound disability, (who) cannot be provided elementary education in a neighbourhood school, shall have the right to be provided education in an appropriate alternative environment as may be prescribed'. This is against the principle of 'inclusion'. Further the Bill has not detailed on the facilities needed to enable children with disabilities to attend school. In this Bill, 'disability' has the meaning assigned by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which does not include such other disabilities as defined by the National Trust Act, 1999 i.e., excluding children with mental and learning disabilities.
• The Right to Education Bill permits private schools on the one side and imposes several conditions/restrictions — on admissions (including the 25 per cent quota), minimum standards and policies on promoting students among others.
• Reservation of seats in school for disadvantaged and economically weaker section: "The Bill provides for 25% reservation of seats in all including private unaided schools for poor children in the neighbourhood. The government would reimburse the money at government rate towards these seats.
The formula for arriving at the rate has not been fixed. The financial arithmetic should have been reflected in the Bill. It's also true that the cost of schooling per child per annum varies widely. The fee paying students who will constitute 75 percent of the children in the school in private schools would be required to pay for these non-paying 25 percent on one hand and also be admitted by displacing the 25 % children from another category. This means that one category will get the benefit at the cost of another which is a dubious idea. Further it is also estimated at 33% extra tax would be charged by the government on parents who dare to send their children to private schools. The government rather improving the standard of its own school is imposing its burden to the private schools.
The Bill states that the government would provide reimbursement to the private school to the extent of per-child expenditure for government schools. But the reimbursement only covers the tuition fees whereas it should in fact measure the full unit cost of education delivered through the public system. This includes current and capital costs including land, building, books, materials etc.
• The voucher system would be a better option. The government should reimburse the school through the voucher. This will promote school choice and will empower parents by providing choices in deciding what schools their children may attend. Hence by allowing children to attend a public or private school of choice the quality of education along with the opportunity to achieve success will also increase. The Private Schools could be asked to take on 10-15% students through the voucher system as an add on.
• On Private unaided schools there is no need to impose conditions for admission and must be given the functional autonomy to manage the school subject to their being accountable for quality of education. Evening shifts may be allowed for maximum utilization of the available resources.
• Discrimination against private schools. Private schools are required to get recognition after fulfilling various infrastructure norms whereas government schools are automatically recognised. This means that a government school can function in open or from a tent and still be recognised, but a private school has to have the entire infrastructure to be recognised.
The Bill states that private schools can be set up only after certification from a 'Competent Authority'. This will again offer scope for corruption by officials who will oversee these aspects. These rules could lead to interference in school management and an 'inspector raj' by the local authority.
The current system of recognition by boards is working reasonably well. Schools to be allowed to affiliate to boards of their choice without needing NOCs.
• Making education a fundamental right may result in poor quality of education. The Bill must guarantee education and not merely schooling in the sense that there needs to be an open commitment that every child will achieve the expected learning outcomes proportionate with the years of schooling. There has to be mechanisms in place to ascertain that the guarantee of education is being fulfilled through periodic assessments to improve the quality of the education system. (Continuous Comprehensive evaluation must be undertaken throughout the year to ensure the learning outcomes)
• The Bill does little to set quality standards: Bill should have insisted upon some quality benchmark say for example that all government-run schools should be of the level of the KVs or JNVs etc. In the name of Right to free and compulsory education it can not compel children to study in inferior quality schools in the neighborhood distorting the very concept of 'neighborhood school' as defined by Parliament.
• The Bill forbids any type of test of the child for admission. Student achievement levels can be assessed only through some type of test to decide the appropriate class for admission.
• The Bill strongly advocates for non-detention policy till a child completes elementary education. In a context in which quality education is being emphasized and all tried-out interventions and inputs are put into the system, non-detention appears to be a non acceptable norm in schools. Hence, the policy of non-detention is in direct conflict with the policy of quality education. There has to be mention of some learning levels of children.
• Bill provides for a uniform curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education within each state but it fails to provide any minimum learning outcome.
• The Bill has not provided any mechanism for overcoming the existing shortcomings of the institutional structures for teachers' training and innovation.
• The bill is also silent on how it is going to overcome the shortage of teachers leave apart qualified teachers. (The country already faces a shortage of 8 lakh teachers in primary and middle schools. As per the NUEPA study "In the desperation to churn out teachers in large numbers, little attention is being paid to their qualifications. About a quarter of all teachers taking Classes I to VIII have themselves studied only till the secondary stage. Another quarter have studied up to the senior secondary stage. So, educational qualification of almost half of all teachers is senior secondary or below.)
• The Bill doesn't make any provision for seeking action against the government authorities.
It's also important that any change in the policy should ensure that it is properly debated; hence same should be with respect to the Right to Education Bill. Before it is tabled in the Lok Sabha and passed certain critical aspects of this Bill needs to be reviewed and may be amended because in its present form the Bill suffers from some anomalies which must be given due consideration. It is important that the Bill finds remedies for all the mentioned glaring lacunae.
•Children in the age group 0-6 years not covered: This bill does not institutionalize Early Childhood Education (Age Group of 0 – 6) an important step towards universalisation of early childhood care & education (pre-primary education) as a significant step towards Universalisation of Elementary education. This is in contradiction to the Supreme Court's (Unnikrishnan) judgment in 1993, giving all children up to 14 years of age a Fundamental Right to Education. This is also in contradiction to India's own commitment at the Jomtien Conference (1990), acknowledging expansion of early childhood care and development activities as an integral part of the 'Education for All' objectives. This bill has not recognised the importance of the early years.
• This Bill has again failed to promote a common school system: The Bill states that "it will be the responsibility of the state to provide free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school within a period of three years from the commencement of the Bill". There is no provision to create an equitable infrastructure to provide an equitable education. This Bill will not be able to meet its obligations unless a common school system encompassing all types of schools is envisaged with effective monitoring mechanisms to ensure quality of education. The State Boards could be fitted into this frame.
• Children with disabilities: The Bill states "children with severe or profound disability, (who) cannot be provided elementary education in a neighbourhood school, shall have the right to be provided education in an appropriate alternative environment as may be prescribed'. This is against the principle of 'inclusion'. Further the Bill has not detailed on the facilities needed to enable children with disabilities to attend school. In this Bill, 'disability' has the meaning assigned by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which does not include such other disabilities as defined by the National Trust Act, 1999 i.e., excluding children with mental and learning disabilities.
• The Right to Education Bill permits private schools on the one side and imposes several conditions/restrictions — on admissions (including the 25 per cent quota), minimum standards and policies on promoting students among others.
• Reservation of seats in school for disadvantaged and economically weaker section: "The Bill provides for 25% reservation of seats in all including private unaided schools for poor children in the neighbourhood. The government would reimburse the money at government rate towards these seats.
The formula for arriving at the rate has not been fixed. The financial arithmetic should have been reflected in the Bill. It's also true that the cost of schooling per child per annum varies widely. The fee paying students who will constitute 75 percent of the children in the school in private schools would be required to pay for these non-paying 25 percent on one hand and also be admitted by displacing the 25 % children from another category. This means that one category will get the benefit at the cost of another which is a dubious idea. Further it is also estimated at 33% extra tax would be charged by the government on parents who dare to send their children to private schools. The government rather improving the standard of its own school is imposing its burden to the private schools.
The Bill states that the government would provide reimbursement to the private school to the extent of per-child expenditure for government schools. But the reimbursement only covers the tuition fees whereas it should in fact measure the full unit cost of education delivered through the public system. This includes current and capital costs including land, building, books, materials etc.
• The voucher system would be a better option. The government should reimburse the school through the voucher. This will promote school choice and will empower parents by providing choices in deciding what schools their children may attend. Hence by allowing children to attend a public or private school of choice the quality of education along with the opportunity to achieve success will also increase. The Private Schools could be asked to take on 10-15% students through the voucher system as an add on.
• On Private unaided schools there is no need to impose conditions for admission and must be given the functional autonomy to manage the school subject to their being accountable for quality of education. Evening shifts may be allowed for maximum utilization of the available resources.
• Discrimination against private schools. Private schools are required to get recognition after fulfilling various infrastructure norms whereas government schools are automatically recognised. This means that a government school can function in open or from a tent and still be recognised, but a private school has to have the entire infrastructure to be recognised.
The Bill states that private schools can be set up only after certification from a 'Competent Authority'. This will again offer scope for corruption by officials who will oversee these aspects. These rules could lead to interference in school management and an 'inspector raj' by the local authority.
The current system of recognition by boards is working reasonably well. Schools to be allowed to affiliate to boards of their choice without needing NOCs.
• Making education a fundamental right may result in poor quality of education. The Bill must guarantee education and not merely schooling in the sense that there needs to be an open commitment that every child will achieve the expected learning outcomes proportionate with the years of schooling. There has to be mechanisms in place to ascertain that the guarantee of education is being fulfilled through periodic assessments to improve the quality of the education system. (Continuous Comprehensive evaluation must be undertaken throughout the year to ensure the learning outcomes)
• The Bill does little to set quality standards: Bill should have insisted upon some quality benchmark say for example that all government-run schools should be of the level of the KVs or JNVs etc. In the name of Right to free and compulsory education it can not compel children to study in inferior quality schools in the neighborhood distorting the very concept of 'neighborhood school' as defined by Parliament.
• The Bill forbids any type of test of the child for admission. Student achievement levels can be assessed only through some type of test to decide the appropriate class for admission.
• The Bill strongly advocates for non-detention policy till a child completes elementary education. In a context in which quality education is being emphasized and all tried-out interventions and inputs are put into the system, non-detention appears to be a non acceptable norm in schools. Hence, the policy of non-detention is in direct conflict with the policy of quality education. There has to be mention of some learning levels of children.
• Bill provides for a uniform curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education within each state but it fails to provide any minimum learning outcome.
• The Bill has not provided any mechanism for overcoming the existing shortcomings of the institutional structures for teachers' training and innovation.
• The bill is also silent on how it is going to overcome the shortage of teachers leave apart qualified teachers. (The country already faces a shortage of 8 lakh teachers in primary and middle schools. As per the NUEPA study "In the desperation to churn out teachers in large numbers, little attention is being paid to their qualifications. About a quarter of all teachers taking Classes I to VIII have themselves studied only till the secondary stage. Another quarter have studied up to the senior secondary stage. So, educational qualification of almost half of all teachers is senior secondary or below.)
• The Bill doesn't make any provision for seeking action against the government authorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment