right to education a failed promisesficec.org/pdf/right to education.pdfright to education a failed...

RIGHT TO EDUCATION A FAILED PROMISE 1

RIGHT TO EDUCATIONA FAILED PROMISE

2 RIGHT TO EDUCATION A FAILED PROMISE

3Deconstructing The Neo-Liberal Assault

Over Indian EducationProf. Anil Sadgopal

22MODEL RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL, 2006

An Outrageous 'Act' of UPA Govt - IIVijender Sharma

31Draft Education Bill, 2005

Ashok Agarwal

45On School Education

60The Central Government's Unparallel Negligence

Towards Elementary EducationRitabrata Banerjee


Deconstructing The Neo-LiberalAssault Over Indian Education

Prof. Anil Sadgopal

Globalisation is not exactly a recent phenomenon. In terms ofi t s

ruthless pursuit of global markets and control over naturalresources and means of livelihood, globalisation has much incommon with colonialism of the eighteenth and nineteenth century.Even its methodology and strategies of influencing the State policiesthrough systematic co-option of the Indian corporate houses andthe educated elite, concomitant with increasing lobbying pressureand economic traps on the ruling class, are reminders of the earlycolonial experience of gaining access through traders, upper casteelite and the royal courts. The IMF, the World Bank, the WTO anda whole spectrum of multi-lateral and multi-national arrangementsrepresent the new structures formed for tightening the strangleholdof the global capital on world economy and extending the marketagenda into every sphere of human activity and concern, includingeducation. The NGOs (with notable exceptions, of course), the so-called civil society organizations of the globalised era, have by andlarge become willing agents for camouflaging the ugly face ofglobalization and presenting it in a 'humanised' language.Globalisation can, therefore, be viewed as a more evolved, powerfuland subtle form of colonialism.

Both the colonialism and globalisation have come to be viewed asa response of the then industrialising and now the affluent west to


its own internal economic crisis and need for expansion of markets.In recent decades, globalisation has acquired the added dimensionof the need for access to new markets for the weapon industry andinformation and communication technology and control overadditional sources of oil, forest and water. This is now clearly evidentin the increasing militarism of the western powers led by thesuperpower USA and non-fulfilment of their internationalcommitments to the developing countries on climate, agriculture,bio-diversity and sustainable development.

Appropriation And Distortion Of KnowledgeIt should surprise no one, therefore, that globalisation has bothused and adjusted with the colonial paradigm of appropriating anddistorting people's knowledge. As this knowledge has been thebasis of human development and welfare since the dawn of humancivilization, the purpose of the market forces is clearly to directpeople's mindsets and creative activities to achieve its cynicalobjectives. Let us recall here the Macauleyan emphasis in earlynineteenth century on controlling and re-orienting higher educationin colonial India at the very outset and imposition of English as themedium of instruction (not education!). The colonial powers knewwell (as do the forces of the global capital) that it is the highereducation sector that generates knowledge for development andchange. It is with this understanding that the Ambani-Birla Report,submitted to the Prime Minister's Council on Trade & Industry inApril 2000, recommended that the entire higher education sectormust be allowed to be privatized (Government of India, 2000). Thereport further recommended that all those disciplines (this includesall sciences and social sciences and even disciplines of humanitiessuch as linguistics) that have a market value must not be supportedby the State funds. The report proposed that such marketableforms of knowledge can instead be supported by the market forces.Only disciplines such as oriental languages, archeology,paleontology, religion and philosophy that do not have a marketvalue today, may continue to receive State funding. This impliesthat the nature of knowledge in sciences and social sciences willhenceforth be determined by the market forces which in turn arecontrolled by the global capital.

Since the knowledge that informs education and its pedagogy frompre-primary level upwards is also generated in the higher educationsector, Ambani-Birla Report implies that education at all levels


henceforth will be determined by the market forces. In this sense,the Ambani-Birla Report fulfills the agenda put forth in the 'WorldDeclaration on Education For All and Framework For Action To MeetBasic Learning Needs' issued by the Jomtien Conference under thesponsorship of the World Bank and UN agencies (Inter-AgencyCommission, 1990), though it seemed to be advocating the causeof elementary education by recommending enhanced State supportfor this sector. Significantly, Tomasevski (2001) noted the followingregarding the Jomtien Declaration:

"The language of the final document adopted by the JomtienConference merged human needs and market forces, movededucation from governmental to social responsibility, made noreference to the international legal requirement that primaryeducation be free-of-charge, introduced the term 'basic education'which confused conceptual and statistical categories. The languageelaborated at Jomtien was different from the language ofinternational human rights law."

{K. Tomasevski (2001), Special Rapporteur on the Right toEducation, to United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, [Note:The Dakar Framework of Action adopted by the Dakar Conferenceof the World Education Forum in April 2000 maintained the basicparadigm of the Jomtien Declaration.]}

Education is no more viewed as a tool of social development but asan investment for developing human resource and global market(ref. Ambani-Birla Report's Foreword, Government of India, 2000).The dominant features of education in the age of globalisation maybe listed as follows (Sadgopal, 2002, 2005):

i) trivialisation of the goals of education;

ii) fragmentation of knowledge;

iii) alienation of knowledge from its social ethos and material base;

iv) determination of the character of knowledge by global marketforces;

v) institutionalisation of economic, technological and socio-culturalhegemony of the international instruments in the formulationof curriculum;

vi) introduction of parallel and hierarchical educational streams


for different social segments;

vii) marginalisation of poor children and youth as well as thebackward regions through competitive screening and adiscriminatory system of institutional assessment andaccreditation at both national and global levels in the pursuitof the questionable notion of 'merit'; and

viii) attrition of the State-supported and democratic structures foreducational planning, finance allocation and management

Admittedly, however, many of the features enumerated above werealso evident either in rudimentary or relatively more pronouncedforms in the pre-globalisation phase as well. What globalisationhas done is the heightening and sharpening of these tendencies.

Commodification and Co-option of Language

It was a forenoon of the year 2005 when the meeting ofthe committee constituted by the Central Advisory Boardof Education (CABE) on 'Universalisation of SecondaryEducation' was in progress. The Member-Secretary placeda document received from the Ministry of HRD for beingconsidered by the committee. The covering letter statedthat the document represented the proceedings of ameeting the Ministry had with the ASSOCHAM on the subjectof the role of private 'education providers' in the field ofsecondary education. The letter further suggested that thecommittee may like to consider the document which talkedof the need to change the CBSE rules governing affiliationof private schools such that the corporate houses registeredunder the companies act may also be eligible for startingschools and getting them affiliated with CBSE. Thedocument wondered: Now that education has becomea commodity, what is wrong in making profit out ofit! Ten years ago, such a statement would have beeninconceivable even as a casual remark in the corridors ofthe Ministry.

Before the year 2005 ended, a 30-page document entitled,'Preliminary Recommendations for Higher Education' wassubmitted by the Education Promotion Society for India


(EPSI) to the Ministry. Some excerpts and comments:

"Review of National Education Policy, 1986 which is not intune and has diluted relevance in conjunction with thecurrent economic and knowledge development scenario inthe country also in perspective of global developments suchas WTO agreement."

Comment: Does it matter at all that the 1986 policy hasalso failed to provide education of equitable quality to allchildren, as required by the Constitution? Or may be theConstitution is also not in tune with the WTO agreement!

"Need for Higher level of involvement of the industry since,they are the direct beneficiary for formulation of relevanceand employable curricula."

Comment: It would not occur to the private "educationproviders" that millions of housewives, farmers, artisans,minor forest produce gatherers, fishermen, constructionworkers, miners, cooks, painters, leather curers and shoemakers, dais and vaids, auto garage mechanics, die makers,plumbers, electricians, gadget repairers, well diggers,diamond cutters and such other producers of nationalwealth are also "direct beneficiaries" and should have asay in "formulation of relevance and employable curricula".

"Fixation of fees to be left to supply and demand. The feescan be raised to the level of realistic cost of education. Theequitable fee will enable the institution to be bothindependent, self-reliant and grow with their ownresources."

Comment: The users of English language could haveprobably never imagined the use of the term "equitable" insuch a context. The sociological meaning of "equitable"will henceforth be determined by the balance of supplyand demand!

Let no one be surprised if the Ministry endorses the EPSIproposals since EPSI has the support of three major nationalchambers of commerce and industry viz. CII, ASSOCHAMand PHDCCI.


Critical Thinking Vs. BehaviourismGlobaisation does not need thinking people. Thinking people canbe dangerous. They ask too many uncomfortable questions. Theyalso tend to explore new and divergent paths. Worse are thosepeople who have been educated to do critical thinking!

Globalisation promotes what it calls knowledge andemotions on fingertips, rather than in head and heart.Thinking (and feeling too!) would be done by theinternet through fingertips on computer keyboards,while the head and heart can be tucked away. Thisis symbolic of the new Orwellian 'knowledge society'where the society receives 'knowledge' passively,rather than generating or transforming it throughcritical interaction with social reality and the materialbase.

The neo-liberal forces are determined to suppress all forms andstructures of education of the masses that lead to critical thinking,generation of new knowledge and humane values and sensitivities,primarily because it promotes social welfare and equity. Sucheducation must be restricted to a selected few who could be utilizedas human resource for advancing the vested interests of globalcapital. Why else do you think the Government of Madhya Pradeshordered the closure of the 30-year old Hoshangabad ScienceTeaching Programme (HSTP) in July 2002? Why indeed did theGovernment stop more than one lakh children from learning sciencethrough experiment-based, inquiry-oriented and environment-related pedagogy in 1,000 schools of 14 districts? No other schoolsin India - not even the expensive and exclusive metropolitan publicschools - were practicing this pedagogy. It must also be noted thatMadhya Pradesh had until recently the largest component of theWorld Bank's District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in India.Obviously, World Bank's notion of knowledge for the developingcountries was inconsistent with the ways in which HSTP (and alsoEklavya's Social Science Programme) viewed knowledge. TheGovernment had no choice but to close the programme, lest theWorld Bank comes in conflict with HSTP when, and if at all, it movesto the upper primary levels where the HSTP's pedagogy was being


practiced.

Let us also examine another critical aspect of globalisation relatedto educational psychology. This has roots in the ideology ofbehaviourism which was promoted in the United States and Europein 1930's when the west was undergoing one of its worst economiccrisis. This ideology viewed human beings as entities which couldbe regulated, controlled and directed. It found expression in theJomtien Declaration (Inter-Agency Commission, 1990) which insistedthat all targets of basic education must be 'observable andmeasurable'. It is also reflected in NCERT's previous 'NationalCurriculum Framework for School Education' which resurrected long-discarded and irrational parametres such as Intelligent Quotient(IQ), Emotional Quotient (EQ) and Spiritual Quotient (SQ) formeasuring, regulating and screening human behaviour (NCERT,2000). Indeed, the basic tenets of computer-based programmedlearning, modular instruction packages, pre-determined market-promoted satellite communication, fragmentation of knowledge intocompetencies and tasks (e.g. NCERT's Minimum Levels of Learning,1991) and trivialisation of human development issues (e.g. thenew curricular topics such as fertility control, AIDS 'consciousness',anti-pollution drives, disaster management, anti-terrorist campaignetc.) flow out of this very ideology of behaviourism that dominatesglobalisation's knowledge agenda. Any attempt by the people toresist this ideology will require re-construction of knowledge thatinforms the dominant framework of educational psychology andalso begin to place both the child and her learning in diverse socio-cultural and developmental contexts.

Structural Adjustment And Abdication By The StateThe impact of global market forces, multi-national capital, satellitecommunication and digital technologies have become thedetermining co-ordinates of knowledge inherent in all curricula -from pre-school to Universities. This impact is concomitant withthe process of privatisation and commercialisation operating at alllevels of education, thereby converting education into a marketablecommodity. This has led to relegation of the State-supportededucation to the poor sections of society, institutionalisation ofparallel and hierarchical streams of education for different socialsegments, providing space to the corporate houses for determiningcurriculum and the phenomenon of increasing abdication by theState of its Constitutional obligation towards education of equitable


quality of all children (see Sadgopal 2004, for detailed analysis).All of these trends are also supported by the Jomtien Conference(Inter-Agency Commission, 1990) which was fully accepted by theGovernment of India.

Evidence of State's tendency to abdicate its Constitutional obligationtowards provision of education of equitable quality for all childrenwas already visible in the National Policy on Education-1986 aswell as in its modified version of 1992 in accepting the low-qualitylow-budget non-formal education as a parallel stream for the poor,especially the child labour and girl children (Government of India,1986 & 1992, Section 5.12; Sadgopal, 2000 & 2003). However, themarket agenda and the IMF-World Bank regime of StructuralAdjustment Programme, as reflected in the Jomtien Declaration,had a significant impact on the State's policies, resulting in furtherattrition of its commitment during the 1990s to fulfill its Constitutionalobligation in the following concrete ways:

Education made synonymous with literacy;

Dilution of elementary education of eight years to primaryeducation of five or less years;

Diverting attention from the central issue of transforming themainstream school system with respect to issues such as thelack of social relevance of education, inequality inbuilt into themulti-track education policy, inflexibility and non-contextualityof curriculum, teaching-learning process and evaluationparameters founded on erroneous pedagogic principles, ill-planned professional content of teacher education etc.;

Imposing Minimum Levels of Learning (MLLs) as a tool fororganizing learning material and evaluation despite the factthat the concept of MLLs is rooted in only a limited andincomplete view of education and is aimed at conditioning thechild's mind with social biases and market ideology (seeDhankar, 2002 for a detailed commentary);

Ignoring the policy commitment to the Common School System(Sadgopal, 2002, p. 123; 2003);

Institutionalisation of low-quality low-budget parallel streamsof education for the deprived sections of society viz. AlternativeSchools, Education Guarantee Scheme etc.;


Reducing the issue of women empowerment and genderdiscrimination to the so-called gender parity measured in termsof enrollment ratios (Government of India, 2001; UNESCO, 2002,pp. 68-79; Sadgopal, 2004);

Marginalising the issue of social and cultural discrimination ofdalits, tribals and the minorities both within and outside theschool and its impact on their capacity to participate in andcomplete elementary education; reducing the entire issue totheir enrollment ratios (Government of India, 1993, 1995 &2001);

Isolating education from its socio-economic context by ignoringissues such as child labour, wage structure, common propertyresources (e.g. fodder, fuel and water), patriarchy, castestructure, cultural alienation and discrimination,communalization of polity, feudal orientation of a significantproportion of Panchayati Raj institutions etc. (Government ofIndia, 1993, 1995 & 2001);

Reducing the aim of girl child's education to the narrow viewwherein women are envisaged as merely 'useful products', readyreceptors or transmitters of demographic and nutritionalmessages or proficient wage earners or producers, therebyviolating girls child's right to education as a human (see WorldBank, 1997, pp. 1 & 39; Sadgopal, 2003);

Violating the Operation Blackboard's norms prescribed by theNational Policy with respect to the number of teachers andclassrooms per primary school and then legitimizing multi-gradeteaching for the poor;

Overlooking the cumulative gap in resource allocation toeducation building up for the past three decades due to non-investment of the recommended level of 6% of GDP in education(Sadgopal, 2004); and

Refusing to re-prioritise the national economy for the purposeof allocating adequate resources for education of the poor andthereby re-distributing social justice; using this reluctance as arationale for seeking external aid for primary education,promoting privatization and commercialization of education atall levels and substituting national concerns with theconditionalities of international aid giving agencies (Sadgopal,


2004; People's Campaign for Common School System, 2005).

[These dilutions of Constitutional obligations, policy commitments and educationalgoals during the post-Jomtien phase of the Nineties were first articulated in a non-Government consultative report on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,Government of India, 1994 and again in Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha's Lokshaladocument, 1995.]

Dependence On External Aid And PrivatisationAlthough various governments, irrespective of their political hues,have failed since independence to allocate adequate funds forelementary education, this tendency now stands reinforced by theIMF-World Bank regime of Structural Adjustment which requiresthat government spending in the social sector, particularly concerningeducation and health, is reduced. It may be noted that external aidflowed in India's primary education sector for the first time in asystematic manner as part of an understanding reached at theJomtien Conference in the Nineties under the World Bank-sponsoredDistrict Primary Education Programme (DPEP). DPEP started 1994-95 and, by the year 2000, had spread to 275 odd districts in 18States - almost half of the country. Ironically, despite this inflow,the nation's capacity to mobilize resources for elementary educationsteadily declined during the Nineties (Sadgopal, 2004). The adverseimpact of external aid on nation's political will to fulfill Constitutionalobligation towards education is yet to become an issue of politicaldebate.

EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE AS % OF GDP

012345

1985-86

1988-89

1991-92

1994-95

1997-98

2000-2001

Years

% of GDP

Source: Selected Educational Statistics 2001-02[Rectified on the basis of 'Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education' (various years), Ministry of

HRD] (Author: Anil Sadgopal)

During the same period, the World Bank-sponsored projects andschemes (e.g. DPEP) promoted a range of parallel educationalfacilities for the poor, such as alternative schools, educationguarantee centers and learning centers. The promise of the 1986policy to provide three teachers to every primary school was replacedby multi-grade teaching and that, too, by an under-qualified,untrained and under-paid "para-teacher" appointed on short termcontract. The consequent deterioration of quality of education in


the government system was followed by the expected withdrawalof even the poor children from these schools and a concomitantphenomenal rise in the number of low fee-charging poor qualityprivate schools in the rural areas and urban slums. All these policydistortions, resulting from Structural Adjustment regime, are nowpackaged 'neatly' under the banner of the much hyped Sarva ShikshaAbhiyan (SSA). In January 2004, the NDA Government signed yetanother agreement with the World Bank for a loan of Rs. 4710crore for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for 2004-2007 i.e. Rs. 1,570 croreper year. At the current level of GDP, this loan amounts to merely0.06% of GDP i.e. merely 6 paise out of every Rs. 100 India willearn in 2004-2005 (the level of total external assistance in thissector since 1993-94 has invariably been much lower than thislevel)! For this pittance, we entered into conditionalities that willnever be made public, as has been the case with externally aidedprojects since 1993-94.

The official stance is in clear violation of the CABE guidelines against'dependency syndrome' and policy dilutions in relation to externalaid (GOI, 1993, p. 89). This dependence on external aid in factimplies that there need not be any change in the priorities of nationaleconomy since additional funds will keep flowing in, as long as theGovernment of India is willing to adjust its educational policy tothe conditionalities of the international funding agencies. Theseare matters of great concern for those of us who have beenconsistently questioning the role of external aid in elementaryeducation. This issue has unfortunately not found any recognitionin the CMP of the UPA government and is yet become a part of thepolitical discourse at the national level.

As per UNESCO's Global Monitoring Report, the ill-conceived SSA isunlikely to achieve its targets even by 2015. The implication ofSSA's collapse would be rapid rise in the number of poor qualityprivate education 'shops'. This is a brief account of how the neo-liberal agenda of commodification of school education is beingpromoted in India - a country known until the onset of NewEconomic Policy for its vast and powerful state-sponsored schoolsystem.

Closing down of government schools followed by the sale of theirprime property assets is now fast spreading as a nation-widephenomenon, especially in urban areas. This is the outcome of awell-designed deliberate policy of allowing the government school


system to gradually deteriorate until it is replaced by the fee-chargingprivate schools. This is precisely what the global market forces, ledby powerful international financial institutions and funding agencies,have been working for.

While the State abdicates its Constitutional obligations, it promotes,at the same time, privatization and commercialization of schooleducation to benefit an upward mobile minority. For this purpose,it extends direct subsidy to the so-called private unaided schoolsfor the rich and upper middle class by (a) making available primeland in urban areas at highly reduced costs; (b) exempting theirincome as well as donations to their Trusts/Societies under theIncome Tax Act; (c) providing, free of cost, professionally trainedteachers who received their diplomas/degrees through publiclysubsidized teacher education programmes; and (d) giving theirinstitutions and examinations due recognition through Government-supported CBSE or State Boards of Examinations. A report of theMinistry of HRD last year documented data on how the rich privateunaided schools mint money, misappropriate funds and avoid payingtaxes, causing substantial loss of government revenue. Ironically,the Draft Right to Education Bill, 2005 proposes that such 'unaidedschools' be provided government grants under various alibi, whilecontinuing to treat them as being in the unaided category. Yet, theDraft Bill has no provision that would require the state governmentto regulate these institutions.

Such subsidized private schools are not expected to fulfill any oftheir Constitutional obligations for ensuring free education ofequitable quality for India's future generations. The recent trend ofsome of these private schools undertaking patronizing measures(often by setting up parallel tracks of their own) for handful ofdeprived children must not be allowed to confuse the policydiscourse. In contrast, the State expresses its desperation regardinglack of resources for fulfilling its Constitutional obligations, unlessexternal aid is increased, seemingly unmindful of the ways in whichIndia's education policy and agenda have been already underminedby globalization.

Right To Education And National EconomyIt is now publicly known that the Draft "Right to Education Bill,2005" prepared by the concerned CABE Committee was 'doctored'by its chairperson (Sh. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister of State for Science& Technology) in association with the Ministry's bureaucracy, thereby


Policy of Demolishing theGovernment School System

The following news item appeared on International Literacy Day, 2004.

"Facing a shortage of students, the Directorate of Education [Delhi] hasdecided to close down 53 government schools, many of which are in oldDelhi. This is in addition to (the) 55 schools already closed . . . . . We haveseen a steady decline in enrollment in government schools."

- Hindustan Times, 8th September 2004

Instead of showing concern and taking steps to improve the functioning ofthe government school system, the authorities seemed to be celebrating.They declared,

"The closure of the schools helps the Directorate in two ways. Firstly, theteachers can be posted in schools having few teachers. Secondly, there issaving on annual expenditure of maintenance and repairs."

- Hindustan Times, 8th September 2004

During the past couple of years, almost 150 government schools have beenclosed down in Delhi alone. The government schools in Delhi have almost70% of the school-going children of the metropolis. Close all of them andthe Directorate will be helped maximally! It will save its entire annual ex-penditure!!

This is not the first time that India has witnessed such a phenomenon. In1999-2000, 30 government schools in the city of Indore were closed downand their campuses, located on prime lands in the heart of the city, wereeither converted into police stations or handed over to private interests fordeveloping commercial complexes. The District Collector, in his report tothe Chief Minister, proudly called it a process of 'rationalisation'! No onecared to know as to where had all the children gone. All of them had joinedthe rapidly mushrooming low-fee charging school shops in theneighbourhood of the erstwhile government schools.

Reports of deterioration of the quality of education in government schoolsfollowed by their closure have come from Hyderabad, Chennai and evensmaller towns. The Jharkhand and Punjab Governments have 'proactively'floated tenders for the sale/disposal of anganwadis and state school cam-puses respectively. Such 'rationalisation' now provides the basic rationalefor the governments in different states for promoting private fee-charging'unaided' schools. It does not seem to make any difference to anyone whomatters in political power if the consequence of this 'rationalisation' is de-nial of education to the underprivileged children, particularly the girls.


making a mockery of the democratic process of CABE. Even thisdiluted Draft Bill was further diluted before the Govt. of India postedit on its website in August 2005. Yet, the UPA government decidednot to present the Bill in the winter session of the Parliament despitethe Presidential approval having been given to the enabling 86thConstitutional Amendment three years ago. It is learnt that theDraft Bill got stuck in the Prime Minster's office as the governmentis unwilling to allocate the required public funds for itsimplementation. This implies that the government is unwilling toreprioritise the national economy in favour of the masses, evenwhen it concerns a Fundamental Right. Recent reports indicatethat the Planning Commission wishes to convert the Draft Bill in alegislation that will promote the multi-track education system as isthe case with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. This means that even theRight to Education will be given to the nation's children as per IMF-World Bank's Structural Adjustment Programme!

One hopes that the Central Government would take direction fromthe Supreme Court (Unnikrishnan Judgment, 1993) which held thatthe State's financial capacity cannot be cited as a valid reason tolimit the Fundamental Right to education with respect to childrenup to 14 years of age. Limitation of financial capacity can be aconsideration only after the age of 14 years, though FundamentalRight will continue to exist even after the age of 14 years. And thiswas before the 86th Constitutional Amendment. After theamendment, there is no room whatsoever for hesitation to mobiliseadequate resources. In case the government does not know howto mobilize resources, they may like to read the report of the TapasMajumdar Committee (January 1999) which inferred that, in thecase of a Fundamental Right, the entitlement "cannot be deferredby the State at its convenience . . . . . The State has to make thenecessary reallocation of resources, by superseding other importantclaims . . . . . . . cut(ting) down even on spending that it wouldotherwise consider as essential, but which was not covered by anyof the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution." Hereis a tentative list of claims on resources that need to be "superseded"as per the Constitution: writing off the bank loans of corporatehouses as 'non-performing assets' (as per Reserve Bank, loans worthRs. 45,000 crores were written off recently); holding CommonwealthGames in 2010; waiving off taxes (both direct and indirect) andproviding hidden subsidies in order to promote conspicuousconsumption; subsidizing private schools and colleges (cheap land,tax exemptions, giving them teachers trained at public costs) andso on.

∗ Based upon the paper presented by the Peoples Campaign for Common School System at theNational Convention on Right to Education held in New Delhi on 9th December 2005.


Right to Education and the Private SchoolThe Draft Right to Education Bill, 2005 requires that private unaided schoolsprovide 25% free seats for children belonging to the weaker sections whoreside in the school's specified neighbourhood. For fulfilling this socialobligation, the private schools shall be reimbursed by the government atthe rate at which the state schools spend on a per child basis. Even thislimited 'social obligation' of the private schools shall end when the childcompletes elementary education of eight years. These schools shall be thenfree to throw the child out of the school since the government will stopreimbursing them.

This provision, at its best, is expected to benefit merely a handful of theunder-privileged living in the neighbourhood of supposedly 'high quality'expensive urban private schools. But the issue of 25% free seats has madeit possible for the entire discourse on Right to Education to be hijacked.Most of the debate is about whether this provision is feasible or not. Hardlyany one is talking about what would happen to the right of the vast majorityof the underprivileged who won't be benefited by this provision. This lop-sided discussion has diverted public attention from the critical issue of theneed to build a Common School System and promote the concept ofneighbourhood school both of which would be entirely marginalised as aconsequence of the Draft Bill.

There is also a provision for the government to extend financial support tothe private unaided school if the latter lacks resources for infrastructuraldevelopment as per the Schedule given in the Draft Bill. Yet, such a schoolwill continue to be treated as an 'unaided school'! Further, the Draft Billmakes it legitimate for the private school to levy capitation fees and anyother charges it deems fit provided the school declares them at the time ofadmissions!

After the passage of the Bill, the state government shall be free to withdrawtheir existing Acts for regulation of private schools as the Bill does nothave any such requirement. Given the proactive private school lobby, thisis precisely what the state governments shall be persuaded to do.

Let us further note that the Draft Bill has no provision requiring the State toprovide adequate financial resources for either fulfillment of Article 21A ofthe Constitution or implementation of the proposed legislation. Nothingcould please the private 'education providers' more! Finally, the Draft Billfails to even recognise the rapidly increasing role of FDI, external assis-tance and international examination/ affiliating bodies (e.g. InternationalBaccalaureate) in school education.

The Draft Bill thus offers the nation a perfect recipe for imple-menting the market agenda of school education!


The CABE Committee Report (June 2005) had provided fourscenarios of financial requirements for implementing this Bill. Thehighest estimate was for the first scenario which was based on apupil:teacher ratio of 35:1 and an average salary for the teacher ofalmost Rs. 8,000/-. For this, an additional investment of Rs. 4,36,500crores would be required over a period of six years from the year2006-07 to 2011-12. The implications of these requirements in termsof % of GDP are presented below:

Source: Report of the CABE Committee onFree and Compulsory Education & Other Is-sues Related to Elementary Education,Volume 2, Table 3.2

Year Additional Financial Requirement (% of GDP)

2006-07 1.882007-08 1.752008-09 1.852009-10 1.572010-11 1.222011-12 1.15Total 1.51

At present, the nation is spending 3.9% of GDP on education,including elementary education. Add the additional requirementfor the Bill as indicated above and we would still be well within thescope of 6% of GDP, with a balance of 0.6% of GDP left over forother sectors of education. The balance would obviously not beadequate for meeting the requirements of secondary/ seniorsecondary and higher education sectors. This high investmentrequirement in elementary education is a result of under-investmentover decades, resulting in a cumulative gap. This gap has to befilled up urgently in order to meet the future requirements bymaintaining expenditure at 6% of GDP. This is precisely why the1986 policy resolved that the outlay on education will "uniformlyexceed 6 per cent of the national income." A fresh evaluation ofthe resource requirement for fulfilling the goal of guaranteeing Rightto Education to all children have led a recent government committeeof experts once again to arrive at similar conclusion (NIEPA,November 2005). Indeed, the requirement of filling up the


cumulative gap is endorsed by the Scenario C worked out by thecommittee as it recommends a gradual rise in allocations such thatthese would continue to grow even beyond 6% of GDP during theXI Plan period and eventually reach the level of 10.22% of GDP by2014-15. The committee records that even this scenario "shouldnot be seen as an ambitious one."

Additional cess is definitely not the answer as this has yielded onlyabout Rs. 6,000 crores last year. By levying the cess, the UPAgovernment attempted to divert public attention from the real issues.The tax:GDP ratio can be improved to some extent to yield additionalresources, as suggested by the Tapas Majumdar Committee. Butthe real answer lies somewhere else. How long would we avoid thequestion of reprioritising the national economy in favour of themasses? The ruling elite has refused to accept this solution sinceMahatma Phule addressed the Indian Education Commission in 1882or Gokhale presented his elementary education Bill in the ImperialAssembly in 1911 or Dr. Ambedkar advocated 'free and compulsoryeducation' in the Constituent Assembly. One wonders whether theCentral Government will continue to dither and prefer to misleadthe people by claiming lack of resources. One thing is clear. Morewe delay, the greater will be the cumulative gap and the goal ofbuilding a civilised society in India will recede further, well beyondthe national horizons.

ConclusionIndian policy makers have hardly acknowledged that issues suchas disparity, socio-economic stratification and caste hierarchies,patriarchy and gender inequity, conflicts of cultural and ethnicidentity, unemployment and disemployment, regional imbalances,distortions of development policy, attrition of values inherited fromthe freedom struggle and cynical attack on democratic institutionshave a decisive impact on the structure and processes of education.The rise of communalism and the consequent attempts to imposemono-cultural hegemony during the past couple of decades hasseriously begun to threaten the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual character of Indian nationhood. Policy formulation and anyrealistic planning of education calls for reviewing the role ofeducation in social change and re-designing the entire educationsystem to deal with these issues. Curriculum must also begin totake note of the rapidly emerging linkage between globalisationand religious fundamentalism (see Ahmad, 2002; Sadgopal, 2004).


There is no space whatsoever either in the Jomtien Declaration orin the framework of the externally aided programmes for suchmeaningful policy changes.

We must learn to recognize the attack of the market forces oneducation as an attack on the nature of knowledge itself and alsoas a design to control its access, production and distribution amongstnations and social classes. These forces have decided that it isonly by regulating, controlling and distorting knowledge that theycan dictate their terms to various nations and large sections ofglobal society. In this sense, the assault of globalization on educationneeds to be viewed as an epistemological attack (Sadgopal, 2002,2004). Only then we will know how to resist and counter it. Acounter-globalisation and counter-revivalist but pro-peopleeducational agenda will aim to empower people to analyse, questionand de-construct the colonial (and now the globalised) paradigmof knowledge and development. This cannot be achieved withoutinformed and conscious social intervention through a grassroots-based people's movement backed by progressive sections of society.

(Author is the Senior Fellow of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library)

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, Aijaz (2002), On Communalism and Globalisation: Offensives of theFar Right, Three Essays, New Delhi.

2. Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha (1995), Lokshala Programme for Universalisation ofElementary Education: Demonstrating an Alternative Vision, New Delhi.

3. Dhankar, Rohit (2000), Seeking Quality Education: In the Arena of Fun andRhetoric, in Seeking Quality Education for All: Experiences from the DistrictPrimary Education Programme, Occasional Papers, The European Commission,June 2002.

4. Government of India (1986), National Policy on Education, Ministry of HumanResource Development (Deptt. of Education), New Delhi.

5. Government of India (1990), Towards an Enlightened and Humane Society - Re-port of the National Policy on Education-1986 Review Committee (AcharyaRamamurti Committee), Ministry of Human Resource Development (Deptt. ofEducation), New Delhi.

6. Government of India (1992), National Policy on Education-1986 (As modified in1992), Ministry of Human Resource Development (Deptt. of Education), NewDelhi.

7. Government of India (1993), Education For All: The Indian Scene, Ministry ofHuman Resource Development (Deptt. of Education), New Delhi.

8. Government of India (1994), Report of a National Consultation on Rights of theChild, Indian Council for Child Welfare, UNICEF and Ministry of Human Re-


source Development (Deptt. of Women & Child Development), New Delhi.

9. Government of India (1995), DPEP Guidelines, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment (Deptt. of Education), New Delhi.

10. Government of India (2000), A Policy Framework for Reforms in Education(Mukesh Ambani and Kumaramangalam Birla), Prime Minister’s Council on Tradeand Industry, New Delhi, April 2000.

11. Government of India (2001), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan: Framework for Implemen-tation, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Deptt. of Elementary Educa-tion and Literacy), New Delhi.

12. Inter-Agency Commission (UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank) (1990),World Declaration on Education For All and Framework For Action To MeetBasic Learning Needs, World Conference on Education for All: Meeting BasicLearning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5-9 March, 1990, New York.

13. National Council of Educational Research & Training (1991), Minimum Levels ofLearning at Primary Stage, New Delhi.

14. National Council of Educational Research (2000), National Curriculum Frame-work For School Education, New Delhi, November 2000.

15. NIEPA (2005), Report of the Committee on National Common MinimumProgramme’s Commitment of Six Per Cent of GDP to Education, November, 2005.

16. Sadgopal, Anil (2000), Shiksha Mein Badlav Ka Sawal, Granth Shilpi, Delhi, pp.175-189.

17. Sadgopal, Anil (2002), Political Economy of Education in the Age of Globalisation,In ‘Children in Globalising India: Challenging Our Conscience’ (Ed.: EnakshiGanguly Thukral), HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi; (2003), Bharat JanVigyan Jatha (BJVJ), New Delhi.

18. Sadgopal, Anil (2003), Exclusion and Inequality in Education: The State Policyand Globalisation, Contemporary India (Journal of the Nehru Memorial Museumand Library), 2 (3), July-September 2003, pp. 1-36.

19. Sadgopal, Anil (2004), Globalisation: Demystifying its Knowledge Agenda forIndia’s Education Policy, 2004 Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Lecture, Councilfor Social Development and India International Centre, New Delhi, 15 July 2004.

20. Sadgopal, Anil (2005), Globalisation: Deconstructing its Knowledge Agenda, In‘School, Society, Nation’ (Eds.: Rajni Kumar, Anil Sethi & Shalini Sikka), OrientLongman, Hyderabad, pp. 83-110.

21. Tomasevski, K. (2001), Right to Education Primers No. 1: Removing Obstaclesin the Way of the Right to Education, Lund, Sweden.

22. UNESCO (2002), Education For All: Is the World on Track? (EFA Global Moni-toring Report), Paris.

23. World Bank (1997), Primary Education in India, Allied Publishers Limited,Mumbai.


MODEL RIGHT TOEDUCATION BILL, 2006

An Outrageous 'Act' of UPA Govt - II

Vijender Sharma

The Congress-led UPA government at the centre has gone backon its commitment of providing free and compulsory education

to all children between the age group of 6 to 14 years. It has nowrefused to enact a central legislation in accordance with Article 21-A of the Constitution and the entire responsibility of implementingthis Constitutional mandate has been left to the states.

Article 21-A was incorporated in the Constitution in December 2002through 86th Constitutional Amendment, which made free andcompulsory education a fundamental right. According to this Article21-A (Right to Education), the State shall provide free andcompulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteenyears in such manner as the State may, by law, determine." Afollow up central legislation was necessitated in order to implementit and the then NDA government brought three drafts of "Free andCompulsory Education Bill" between July 2003 and January 2004.All the drafts were strongly criticised and rejected for being anti-child, anti-education and for containing many discriminatoryprovisions.

After coming to power in May 2004, the UPA governmentreconstituted the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). Withmuch fanfare in August 2004, the CABE constituted sevencommittees to deal with various aspects relating to educationincluding on "Free and Compulsory Education Bill and other issues


related to Elementary Education." This committee, chaired by theunion minister, Kapil Sibal, proposed to the CABE the fourth draftof the Bill in June 2005 that was also strongly criticised and notaccepted by the CABE itself. The government then came up with afifth draft of Right to Education Bill in August 2005 with severalchanges and new clauses, which had more loopholes.

Threat To The State GovernmentsWhile the provisions of the fifth draft of the Bill were still beingdebated and several amendments were being proposed, the primeminister set up a Group of Ministers (GoM) to look into the feasibilityof its implementation. Without making the report of the GoM public,the UPA government, in May this year, expressed its intent of givingup the Bill altogether citing the reason of lack of funds. However ithas now come out with a sixth draft "Model Right to Education Bill,2006" and asked the states to adopt the Bill in toto threateningthat otherwise the central government would reduce the 75:25ratio of expenditure on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to a 50:50 ratio.Moreover, in the proposed Model Bill 2006, several crucial andimportant clauses of the fifth draft Bill have not been included andseveral new clauses have been added which have made the ModelBill 2006 outrageous and against the spirit of free and compulsoryeducation to all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years.

Except a few provisions like neighbourhood school, prohibition ofscreening procedure, school management committee, certificationof completion of elementary education and prohibition of physicalpunishment, other provisions in the Model Bill 2006 are a furtherdilution of the Right to Education (RTE) Bill 2005 and do not fulfillthe objective for which the Constitution itself was amended. TheModel Bill 2006 legalises the commercialisation of education,continues child labour and perpetuates exploitation of students/parents by the managements of private schools. The government'sapproach of diluting this right is apparent in this and the earlierdraft Bills.

Free & Compulsory Education"Free Education", as defined in Section 2(p) of the Model Bill 2006,means "freedom for the child and her parent/guardian from liabilityto: (i) pay any fee or charges to the school where the child/ward isstudying, or to an examining body or any other external bodyproviding any service through the school (ii) incur such otherexpenses, as may be prescribed, which are likely to prevent the


child from participating in and completing elementary education."But there is no commitment to supply free textbooks, stationery,uniforms, mid-day meals, and other steps to retain the child in theschool.

Further, the "Compulsory Education", as defined in Section 2(j),means "an obligation on the State to take all necessary steps interms of this Act to ensure that: (i) every child of the age of sixyears is enrolled in a school, participates in it, and completeselementary education (ii) every child over six years, but less than14 years, who was not enrolled in a school at the commencementof this Act, is enrolled in a school, participates in it, and completeselementary education." This obligation of the State has becomeredundant by various provisions in the Model Bill 2006 itself.

A Hoax Of "Child's Right"There is nothing like " child's right" in this entire provision. On theother hand, ways and means to deny admission to child are writlarge. The proviso of the Section 3(1) of RTE Bill 2005 had providedthe right for an "appropriate alternative environment" for thosechildren who suffer from "severe or profound disability". This Sectionhas been diluted in the Model Bill 2006 by adding that such rightwill be available only till the child "attains the age of eighteen."Thus the Model Bill 2006 is insensitive to the needs of the childrenabove eighteen years of age and suffering from "severe or profounddisability". What kind of "appropriate alternative environment" wouldbe has not been specified.

Another loophole has been created by including a proviso in thisSection that "appropriate alternative environment" will also beprovided to those children who cannot attend neighbourhood schoolsdue to "nature of occupation of her parents." By including thisphrase, the government has given a freehand to the appropriateauthority running the school to deny admission to any child underthe garb of "nature of occupation" of her parents and may try tomake inequitable arrangement for their education. Explanationappended to this Section makes it clear that neighbourhood schoolshall be determined on the basis of the proof of residence of thechild. It is a clear attempt to keep crores of children out of thepurview of this legislation, because destitute children and thosebelonging to migrant workers and families cannot give proof oftheir residence.


The Section 3(2) of RTE Bill 2005 had provided that a non-enrolledchild in the age group of 7-9 years should be admitted to an ageappropriate grade in a neighbourhood school "within one year".Further the Section 3(3) had provided that a child in the age groupof 9-14 years will also have a right to be "provided specialprogrammes" so that she is enrolled in the age appropriate gradeas early as possible, but in any case "within three years" from thecommencement of this Act. However, in the Model Bill 2006 thewords "within one year" and "within three years" have been replacedby "within such period as may be prescribed" which has diluted thecompulsory timeframe. As per Section 6 of the Model Bill 2006, thestates are free to prescribe "such period" which may extend toseveral years, thus making a mockery of free and compulsoryeducation.

Responsibility Of The StateFirstly, the words, "general responsibility" used in Section 5 areinappropriate, as these do not create justiceable right in favour ofa child. It is required to be replaced by the words, "mandatoryobligations". While the central government has given up itsConstitutional responsibility of enacting a central legislation forimplementing the provisions of Article 21-A on free and compulsoryeducation, it has bound the state governments, through the ModelBill 2006, to ensure that "the first charge on its revenues, next onlyto law and order, shall be that of matters related to free andcompulsory elementary education." (New Section 5(1) added tothe Model Bill 2006). It should be noted that already it is the statesthat have been spending a lion's share of expenditure on educationin the country.

The Section 5(i) of RTE Bill 2005 had provided that the State shall"ensure the availability of a neighbourhood school for every childwithin a period of three years from commencement of this Act;"and that "in case of non-availability of a neighbourhood school, theState shall provide free transportation arrangements to the nearestschool or provide free residential schools/ facilities." This Sectionhas been changed drastically and presented as Section 5(2) of theModel Bill 2006. In this Section, the words "within three years"have been replaced by "within such period as may be prescribed"and the provision for free transportation or free residential schoolhas been replaced by "such alternate arrangements for the educationof affected children as may be required." The NDA government


had in the earlier draft Bills defined "such alternate arrangements"which would only ensure shabby and discriminatory treatment tochildren belonging to the weaker sections of the society -- thefarmers, the agriculture workers and the working class. Such notmeant for equitable and quality education but for showing on papersthat elementary education had been ensured.

Another Section 5(v) of RTE Bill 2005 which put the responsibilityof the State to ensure that "economic social, cultural, linguistic,gender, administrative, locational, disability or other barriers donot prevent children from participating in, and completingelementary education" has been deleted in the Model Bill 2006altogether. The state governments can now wash their hands offfrom bringing a child to the school if any of these barriers preventher/him in coming to the school. In order to provide free andcompulsory elementary education to all children in the relevantage group, the centre and states have to solve the problems arisingdue to these barriers. But with the deletion of this Section, thebarriers can prevent children from coming to school and the centraland state governments can get away with this.

The Section 7 of both the RTE Bill 2005 and the Model Bill 2006provides for pre-school education for the children between the agegroup of 3-6 years. This age group is improvement on earlier drafts.But in the sentence that the appropriate government shall"endeavour to" provide facilities for pre-school education in Stateand fully-aided schools do not create a right and does not amountto mandatory provision. Therefore, the words "endeavour to" shouldbe deleted so as to make this provision mandatory.

THE Section 9 of the RTE Act 2005 had provided for centralgovernment's responsibility to "financial assistance to stategovernments in accordance with such formula regarding sharing ofcosts of implementation of this Act, as the central government maydetermine from time to time in consultation with state governments."It had also provided for, apart from other things, "technical resourcesupport to the state governments", "monitoring progress ofimplementation" and "appropriate steps in case of default". All theseprovisions have been dropped altogether in the Model Bill 2006. Bythis change the central government has washed its hands off fromits Constitutional responsibility of providing free and compulsoryelementary education to the children of relevant age group.


Every appropriate government was mandated by the Section 11 ofthe RTE Bill 2005 to assess the State's requirement of professionallytrained teachers "within six months" and increase the "capacity ofexisting training institutions" to match the requirement "within suchperiod not exceeding five years" from the commencement of thisAct. This timeframe has been dropped in the Section 10 of theModel Bill 2006 making no one accountable for the non-availabilityof teachers, if any. In most of the states, several thousands ofteaching positions in schools have not been filled up and continueto remain vacant even now.

Responsibility Of SchoolsThe Section on the responsibility of schools to provide free andcompulsory education has been drastically amended. The RTE Bill2005 was being criticised because State schools of "specifiedcategories" such as Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, andSainik Schools and such other schools that have "distinct character"were to provide free and compulsory education not to all childrenbut to only 25 per cent children admitted to Class I. Now theseState schools have been completely taken out of the purview ofthe Model Bill 2006. By the definition of "specified category" inSection 2(j), it is clear that more and more State schools with"distinct character" can be added to the "specified category" inorder to deny free and compulsory education to children. It isunthinkable that the State schools can be exempted from providingfree and compulsory education to any child.

Free and compulsory elementary education will be provided to alladmitted children only by the State schools and fully aided schoolsexcept schools of specified categories as per Section 13 of theModel Bill. Another provision of the previous Bill that aided schools,other than fully-aided schools, and unaided schools were to providefree and compulsory elementary education to children belongingto weaker sections to at least 25 per cent of the admitted childrenhas been dropped in the Model Bill 2006 under the pressure of themanagements of the private schools. This provision was to applyto pre-primary schools as well. Since the private schoolmanagements make lot of money at the time of admissions to theirpre-primary sections, therefore the proviso related to 25 per centadmission to the children of weaker sections has also been droppedin the Model Bill 2006. Whom is the central government befooling?Itself! It is most shameful that the UPA government has succumbed


to the pressure of private school managements and is openlypromoting commercialisation of education.

Other ProvisionsThe Section 17 of the Model Bill 2006 drastically changes the normsand standards for a school. Section 20 provides for SchoolManagement Committee with parents constituting three-fourthsmembership, which is a good provision. There is no provision forthe School Management Committee for unaided schools. As perSection 21, teachers shall be assigned to a school and thereafterthey will not be transferred except those in schools of specifiedcategories.

All vacancies of teaching positions should be filled up. Whileaccording to Section 22 of the Model Bill 2006 teacher vacancies inState schools and fully aided schools cannot exceed 10 per cent ofthe total strength, but aided and private schools, by implicationcan have vacancies more than 10 per cent. In any case, this provisiongives free hand to the government and the school managementsto perpetuate shortage of teachers. For equitable and qualityeducation, it is necessary to have some surplus teachers who couldtake care of teaching in the absence of some teachers who mayhave gone on leave for various reasons.

Those teachers who are not qualified to teach but are employed toteach were to acquire requisite qualification within five years withthe employer bearing all expenses as per the previous draft Bill.This time span has been dropped in Section 23 of the Model Bill2006. Duties and accountability of teachers of State schools andfully-aided schools have been well defined but aided and unaidedschools have been kept out of the relevant Sections 24 and 25.However, it is unfair and undemocratic to exclude all teachers, exceptthe head teacher, from the meeting of the School ManagementCommittee convened to discuss the conduct of a teacher [Section25(2)].

Instruction In Mother Tongue Given Up In Section 29 of the RTE Bill 2005, there was at least mention thatthe schools shall "use the child's mother tongue as the medium ofinstruction as far as possible, at least during the first five years ofthe elementary stage." This Section has been completely deletedin the Model Bill 2006. However, it is strange and atrocious that inthe entire Model Bill 2006, the question of imparting education in


child's mother tongue does not figure at all.

The entire chapter on 'National Commission for ElementaryEducation' that was to be constituted by the central government tocontinuously monitor the implementation of the right to educationlegislation and advise the government on related matters has beendeleted in the Model Bill 2006. It shows that the UPA governmenthas given up its commitment to free and compulsory education.

The Section 48 of the RTE Bill 2005 provided that "no person shallprevent a child from participating in elementary education" and"no person shall employ a child in a manner that renders her aworking child." Further, the Section 51(j) of the RTE Bill 2005provided that if any person contravenes this provision, he shall be"punishable with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees,and in case of continuing contravention, with an additional fine notexceeding rupees five hundred for each day during which suchcontravention continues." Both these Sections have been droppedin the Model Bill 2006. The child labour is rampant and about tencrores of children in the age group of 6 to 14 years are employedas contract labour in one or the other kind of work. Without fullybanning the child labour, how can one bring a child to the school?If the central government is serious, it must take the responsibilityto ban child labour altogether and take necessary steps in thisdirection.

Parents To Be PunishedInstead of creating conditions so that a parent is able to send hischild to the school, Section 30 of the Model Bill 2006 provides incase of default that the school management committee may "directsuch parent/guardian to perform compulsory community serviceby way of child care in the school." This provision is atrocious. It istotally misconceived that parents do not wish to send their childrento school. The Model Bill 2006 grants complete immunity to theState from any responsibility, penalty or punishment in any case ofdefault. The irony of the provision is that while the parent/guardianis going to be punished to "perform compulsory community service"in case of default, the central government which has abdicated itsresponsibility through the Model Bill 2006 to bring the child to theschool is going scot-free. Article 21-A mandates the "State" (andnot the "parent") to provide " free" and "compulsory" education tothe children. Therefore, this provision must be deleted.


Pro-Private Management Provision It may appear as a good provision that Section 34 of the Model Bill2006 provides that a "school management, charging capitation fee,shall be liable to fine which may extend to ten times the capitationfee charged." Section 14 prohibits "any payment in the nature ofcapitation fee." However, the definition of "capitation fee" as givenin Section 2(e) is "any fee, donation or contribution other than afee or any payment that an aided/unaided school publicly notifiesat the time of announcement for admission as being payable by allchildren in the event of admission to the school." It means that if aprivate school management publicly notifies at the time ofannouncement for admission, howsoever arbitrary and unjustifiedfee, it is legalised and hence not prohibited. The government isthus promoting, instead of checking, commercialisation of educationby these private schools.

If a school conducts any screening procedure for admission ofchildren, Section 34 further provides that its management shall beliable to fine which may extend to Rs 25,000 for the firstcontravention, and Rs 50,000 for subsequent contraventions. If aperson runs a school which is not recognised he shall be punishablewith fine which may extend to Rs 1,00,000 and in case of continuingcontravention, to a fine of Rs 10,000 for each day during whichsuch contravention continues. However, this Section does not provideany penalty against the State in the event of State's failure todischarge its constitutional and statutory obligations.

The Model Right to Education Bill, 2006 does not provide at all anyright to free and compulsory education to a child in the age groupof 6 to 14 years as mandated by the 86th amendment of theConstitution. This Bill has made a mockery of Article 21-A of theConstitution of India. This Bill seeks to transfer the entire burdenof expenditure on the state governments. It has created moreloopholes than it solved the problems in the previous drafts of theRTE Bills. It promotes commercialisation of education and protectsprivate school managements. It has allowed people to continue toemploy with impunity children in the relevant age group as contractworkers. This Bill is not a document which can be converted into astatute by which equity and quality in education can be ensured.This is a document for continued discrimination of weaker sectionsof the society. This is a document for continued exploitation of theinnocent parents. This is an outrageous 'Act' of the UPA governmentwhich violates its own common minimum programme commitmentof spending 6 per cent of the GDP on education. It empowers theState to prosecute the innocent citizens for its own criminal


Draft Education Bill, 2005

Ashok Agarwal

In December 2002, Article 21-A has been incorporated in theConstitution of India, which says "21-A. Right to Education-The

State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children ofthe age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may,by law, determine." By the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment)Act, 1976, the subject "Education" was brought in the concurrentlist from the State list. However, there is no Central Legislation sofar on the subject of education particularly in relation to elementaryeducation. A follow up legislation in terms of Article 21-A is anecessity.

As a step in the direction of the follow up legislation, the CentralGovt. sometime in July-August, 2003 prepared the first draft of the"Free and Compulsory Education Bill" and the same was placed onthe HRD website. The said Bill was widely criticized for being anti-child and lacking in its objectivity and thereafter, on 10th December

PUNISHMENT FOR PARENTSAND IMMUNITY FOR STATE, TRAUMA FOR CHILDRENTAKING ADMISSION UNDER 25% QUOTA AND FREEHAND TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO COMMERCIALISE

EDUCATION AND EXPLOITCHILDREN/PARENTS


2003, the Central Govt. came up with 2nd Draft of the "Free andCompulsory Education Bill". This 2nd draft Bill was again widelycriticized for the same reasons and thereafter, on 8th January 2004,the Central Govt. came up with a 3rd draft of the "Free andCompulsory Education Bill".

With the change of Govt. at the Centre, the UPA Governmentreconstituted the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). TheCABE in its meeting on 10/11 August 2004 decided to set up asmany as seven committees to deal with different issues relating toeducation. One such committee was on the subject of "Free andCompulsory Education Bill and other issues related to ElementaryEducation" under the Chairmanship of Sh. Kapil Sibal, MOS Scienceand Technology. The said Committee has now come up with adraft of Right to Education Bill, 2005 and the same has also beenposted on the HRD website for public comments. This Bill is expectedto come up in the winter session of the Parliament.

On examination of this draft Bill, it has been found that barring fewprovisions like neighborhood school, prohibition of screeningprocedure, school management committee, certification ofcompletion of elementary education and prohibition of physicalpunishment, the rest of the provisions are either far from theobjectives underlying the Bil l or intent to legalize thecommercialization of education and exploitation of students/parentsby the private schools. The government's approach behind thisand the earlier draft Bills is more or less the same.

Provisions Of This Draft Bill(1) "Capitation fee" as defined in Section 2 (e) means any fee,donation or contribution other than a fee or any payment thatan aided/unaided school publicly notifies at the time ofannouncement for admission as being payable by all childrenin the event of admission to the school. The Section 15 prohibitscapitation fees. By reading Section 2 (e) with Section 15, it isclear that these provisions give a free hand to the private schoolsto commercialize the education and to exploit the innocentparents who are sending their children in these schools. Theseprovisions legalize the fee structure decided by the school, howso ever arbitrary and unjustified it may be, if the same is publiclynotified at the time of announcement for admission. There is


nothing in the Bill as to what would be the criteria and methodof determining the fee structure and how the same could beregulated. The powers and obligations of the State to checkcommercialization of education by these private schools aretotally missing. It all goes against the law laid down by theSupreme Court in Modern School case (2004) 4 SCC 583. TheBill has attempted to undo the law laid down in the abovecase.

It is submitted that if one goes as per the letters and spirit ofArticle 21-A, every school, whether private or government, isconstitutionally obliged to provide free and compulsoryelementary education to every child. This argument is buttressedby the submission that a recognized private school stands onthe legal pillars like, community service, philanthropic activity,public good, no commercialization and no profit and therefore,such school could and should not have any objection to providefree and compulsory elementary education to the children inthe same manner as government school is obliged to provide.The Bill ought to have been drafted in the manner that couldhave achieved this objective. Has it been done, it would lead toestablish Common School System (CSS), which has beenrecommended by the Kothari Commission (1964-66) andenvisaged in National Policy on Education, 1968, 1986 and 1992and would also be in tune of constitutional goals of social,political and economic justice to the people. It is the time forthe government to rise to the occasion and to act firmly so todo justice to the vast majority of people who are hithertocompletely deprived of the same.

(2) "Specified Category" in relation to State schools as defined in S2 (nn) means the State schools known at the commencementof this Act as Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidayalayas, andSainik Schools and such other categories of State schools havinga distinct character as may be specified by notification by theappropriate Government, for the purposes of this Act. In termsof the Section 14, such State schools of specified categoriesshall not be obliged to provide free and compulsory elementaryeducation to children. These schools, as in the case of unaidedschools, however, would be required to admit children, to atleast 25% to class I, from among children belonging to weakersections and for the continued education of such children in


the school thereafter till completion of elementary educationor till they seek transfer from the school, which ever is earlier.

This provision is totally arbitrary and unconstitutional. Thegovernment through these provisions has conferred upon itthe power to declare any category of State schools as "specifiedschools", meaning thereby, that more and more State schoolscan deny free and compulsory education to children. How aState school can be exempted from providing free andcompulsory education to any child? The State schools cannotbe legally sub- divided for the purposes of providing right tofree and compulsory elementary education to children. It wouldbe absolutely arbitrary and impermissible classification of Stateschools and would be hit by Articles 14 (right to equality) and21(right to life) and 21-A (right to education) of the Constitution.Is it not the mockery of the Constitution? If it were accepted,where the child would go for education? It is an exclusion clauserather than an inclusion clause. If State itself starts behavinglike it, it would be the end of everything. Moreover, if onebelieves on what is written in the Section 14, a child takingadmission in such schools under 25% quota would not beentitled to continue in the such school after completion ofelementary education, even if, such school is up to seniorsecondary class and the child wished to study up to sr. secondaryclass in the same school. If it were allowed to happen, would itnot lead to trauma for these children as well as their parents?

(3) Section 3 - Child's Right to Free and Compulsory Education ofEquitable Quality: It is submitted that there is nothing like "child's right" in this entire provision. On the other hand, waysand means to deny admission to child are writ large. In termsof Section 3 (1), any child with disability can be legally deniedadmission in a neighborhood school on the alleged ground thathe is suffering from severe or profound disability. Does suchapproach not violate the fundamental and human right of everychild with disability to education in the mainstream school?

In terms of the provision, any child not having proof of residencecan be legally denied admission in a neighborhood school. Theburden of proof of residence lies on the parent/guardian. Isevery parent/guardian capable to discharge this burden ofproof? The destitute child who does not have parent/guardianwill have no scope to get admission in school because in case


of destitute child, there is no question of existence of proof ofresidence. Similarly, crores of children of migratory labour wouldalso meet the same fate. It is submitted that, even if, theresidence is the criteria for admission in a neighborhood school,it must be the duty of every school to admit the child first,without questioning anything, and only thereafter, if required,it should again be the duty of the school admitting the child tofind out the appropriate neighborhood school for him and thentransfer him to that school. In other words, admission of childin a neighborhood school must be the sole responsibility of theschool and the same cannot, in any manner, be shifted to theparent/guardian of that child. This provision is more in a natureof exclusion than that of inclusion. Though the concept ofneighborhood school sounds well and needs to be effectivelyenforced but the provisions in the present form really negatesthis concept.

Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 talks of enrolling child who isin the age group 7-9 years within one year and in the agegroup 9-14 years within three years. It is submitted that theseperiods of one year and three years really make the mockeryof the provision. Firstly, in case of a child of 9 years, it is notclear, which period will apply? This itself gives leverage in thehands of a school, to deny admission to him at least for thenext three years. Secondly, in case of a child of 14 years, if hewas not admitted immediately, he would become 15 years nextyear and then, he would be told that he was no longer a "child"within the meaning of the Act and was not entitled to admissionas a matter of right. If the analogy of this three years period ascontemplated in the provision is applied, all the children whoare in the age group 12-14 years at the commencement of theAct could be conveniently denied elementary education all thetime to come. These time periods, in any way, could be abusedto deny admission to a mass of the children in age group 7-14years. This is not the objective of the Act.

Sub-Section (4) of Section 3 provides that a child who, thoughenrolled is not able to participate in elementary education, shall,in addition to the right specified in sub clause (1), have theright to be provided with suitable conditions, as may be decidedby appropriate government, to enable her participation. Is itpossible for a child in need of residential school or day boarding


school or in need of any other thing to approach the appropriategovernment and wait for their decision? Is it appropriate toleave these things to be decided by the appropriate governmentonly? Why can't it be decided by the Head of the school or atthe most, at the level of the School Management Committeewho are near to the child and are in the best position tounderstand his need/needs? The provision is only providing lipservice.

Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 provides that no child shall be heldback or expelled from school until she completes elementaryeducation, except through an order of the School ManagementCommittee, and in the event of an SMC passing an order, itshall be required to bring such order to the notice of theappropriate government, which will then give directionsregarding other neighborhood schools to which the expelledchild shall be admitted for purposes of her further education.What is logic behind sending the expelled child to anotherschool? What is the logic behind expelling child at all? It issubmitted that Rule 37 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973allows disciplinary measures like, fine, expulsion or rusticationonly in case the students who have attained the age of fourteenyears. It is totally unjustified to even think of expelling a childfrom the school before he completes elementary education.The government by such provision is only abdicating itsconstitutional obligations to provide free and compulsoryelementary education to every child.

(4) Section 5 - General Responsibility of State: Section 5 (ii) statesthat it shall be the responsibility of the State to ensure thatevery child is provided free education in the school providedthat parents/guardians who choose to admit their children tonon-free quota in a school shall not have any claim on theState for providing free education to their children. Firstly, thewords, "general responsibility" used in Section 5 areinappropriate, as these do not create justiciable right in favorof child. It is required to be replaced by the words, "mandatoryobligations".

Secondly, the provisions of Section 5 (ii) are arbitrary, discriminatory,unconstitutional and hit by the provisions of Article 14 and 21,21-A of the Constitution. It overlooks the fact these Articles ofthe Constitution mandate the State to provide free and


compulsory education to every child without exception. If it so,then how the State can legitimately deny claim of parents/guardians for providing free education to their children merelybecause of the fact that they did not choose to admit theirchildren to non-free quota in a school? It also overlooks thefact that the right of every child to receive free and compulsoryeducation in terms of Article 21-A is an independent right ofevery child and that does not, in any manner, depends on theeconomic status of its parents/guardians. The provisions ofSection 5 (ii) are totally unwarranted and required to be deleted.

(5) Section 7- Provision of Facilities of Pre-School Education: Firstly,it is not mandatory and in no manner creates a justiciable rightin favour of child to receive pre-school education. It is interestingto note that the Bill does not recognize a child as "child forpurpose of this Act" if he is below six years or above fourteenyears of age. This provision has been incorporated more as amatter of policy than that of law. Secondly, it assumes thatICDS or any other government programme is a substitute forpre-school education, which is not factually correct. Thegovernment is not justified in providing pre-school educationto few and to deny the same to the others. In order to achievethe goal of UEE, it is a must that every child is provided pre-school education as a matter of right. It is submitted that theprovision for pre-school education as a matter of right of everychild is a pre-condition to effectuate the right to elementaryeducation. Thirdly, ICDS, if it is available, must be merged inpre-school education in the school. Fourthly, the pre-schooleducation must be in the school and not outside of the school.It is submitted that the government has acted totally againstthe interests of the children, when it did not include the childrenof age group 0-6 years in Article 21-A of the Constitution.

(6) Section 12 - Responsibility of Local Authorities: In clause (iv)of sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Local Authority is supposedto ensure sustained education of children of migrant familiesthrough special steps, including bridge courses, remedialteaching, and such other interventions as may be required. Itis submitted that this provision of the Bill gives an impressionthat regular schools are not suitable for the children of migrantfamilies and therefore, they should be provided with facilitieslike bridge courses etc. The government has miserably failed


to address the educational rights of the children of migrantfamilies.

(7) Section 14 - Responsibility of Schools to provide Free andCompulsory Education: The following are the characteristics are:

Specified schools and unaided schools have been placed at parso far as the obligations under this Act are concerned. It istotally unconstitutional to take away some State schools out ofState schools and classify them as 'specified schools' and allowthem to abdicate obligations to provide free and compulsoryeducation to the children. It goes against the basic constitutionalphilosophy of social justice.

The provisions for providing admission to the children of weakersections to the extent of 25% by the unaided schools in class Ior in pre-primary section for which the government willreimburse the expenditure to the school at a rate equal to theper child expenditure in State school/fully aided schools andState funded pre-schools, or the actual amount charged perstudent by such school, whichever is less, though sounds wellin principle but a farce in reality. That such children of theweaker sections, in terms of these provisions, would be entitledto continue their education in these unaided schools only tillcompletion of elementary education or till they seek transferfrom the school, whichever is earlier. Has the government everthought of what would happen to the studies of these childrenon completion of elementary education? Would they be entitledto continue their studies for higher classes in the same school?These children would be thrown out of the school on completionof elementary education and would not be entitled to continuein the same school, even when the school is up to class 12 andthe child wished to study up to class 12. Would such situationnot lead to trauma for such children and their parents/guardians? It is submitted that no child would dare to takeadvantage of the provision, if he is not assured by law that hewould be allowed to continue his studies up to the upper mostclass, which is available in the school. The social objective behindthe provision is undoubtedly laudable, and therefore, thegovernment must ensure that all possible mischief isappropriately dealt with in the provision.


There is another aspect of this provision also. The unaidedschools which are charging fee per student less than what isthe expenditure per student in their counter part State schoolshall immediately increase their fee per student in order toensure that they must get reimbursement from the governmentat the rate not less than that of per child expenditure in Stateschools. Who will suffer? The innocent students/parents whoare already victim of commercialization of education would sufferfurther. Is the State not an accomplice to perpetuatecommercialization of education? It is needless to say that theeducation is the only sector in our country wherecommercialization of the same is constitutionally prohibited andthe State is obliged to check it.

(8) Section 17 - Recognition of Schools: The provision empowersthe competent authority to withdraw the recognition of a schoolother than a State school for breach of conditions and thatwhile passing an order withdrawing recognition, the competentauthority shall also give direction regarding other neighborhoodschools to which children studying in the de-recognized schoolshall be admitted for purposes of their education. Firstly, theSection does not contain the provision for taking over of theschools though such provision exists in the prevailing StateLegislations. Secondly, the most fundamental question arisesis: why a recognized school is at all allowed to be closed down?The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Delhi AbibhavakMahasangh AIR 1999 Delhi 124 observed, "There has to be anelement of public benefit or philanthropy in the running of theschools. The schools are to be run for public good and not forprivate gain. The object has to be service to Society and not toearn profit. The public benefit and not private or benefit to afavoured section of Society has to be the aim". These are thepre legal conditions of a recognized school. The closing downof a school, unless such school is not needed for the educationof the children, would be opposed to the public policy anddetrimental to the public interest. A recognized school is a publicproperty in law and no one except the community is empoweredto take decision about its continuance or closure. Therefore,no school, after its commencement and recognition, should beallowed to be closed down provided that the competentauthority is of the opinion that such school is not needed forthe education of the children.


(9) Section 20 - Prohibition of Deployment of Teachers for Non-educational Purpose: It provides that no teacher of a State orfully aided school shall be deployed for any non-educationalpurpose except for decennial population census, election tolocal authorities, State Legislatures and Parliament, and disasterrelief duties. The objective of this Bill is to ensure free andcompulsory quality elementary education to all the children ofthis country. By deploying the teachers for non-educationalpurposes, even the routine education of the students is boundto be adversely affected and what to talk of quality education.That most of the State schools are already suffering from theshortage of teachers, absence of teacher as well as teachersnot taking interest in the education of the children. The Stateschools, by and large, are failing in both retaining the exitingstudents and enrolling out of school children. This provision inthe present form will only work against the objective of theBill. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has repeatedly held thatteachers of State schools cannot be deployed for any non-educational purposes at the cost of the education of thestudents. This provision in the present form takes away suchrights of the children, which they have secured through CourtOrders.

(10) Section 24 - Teachers Vacancies in State Schools and Fullyaided Schools Not to Exceed 10 % Of Total Strength: Thisprovision is unjust and makes the mockery of the entire exerciseof framing a legislation to provide free and compulsory qualityelementary education to every child. It virtually gives a licenseto the State to perpetuate teachers' shortage in school. Onecan understand the provision for having some percentage ofsurplus teachers to take care of the education of the childrenwhen regular teachers go on leave, but it is absolutelyinappropriate, unjust and unconstitutional to enact a provisionpermitted the appointing authority to have, at least, shortageof teachers to the extent of 10% of the total sanctioned postsof teachers. This provision goes against the objectives of Article21-A of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court by ordershave directed the Government of Delhi to ensure that theremust be zero teacher vacancy at the beginning of each academicyear so that the education of the students should not suffer. Itappears that the government is more concerned to cover upits own failures rather than remedying the same. The regulations


are required and made to enforce the rights but here, it isotherwise. This is most unfortunate. The provision, therefore,requires to be modified accordingly.

(11) Section 33 - National Commission for Elementary Education:Sections 19 and 33 to 45 are concerned with the constitution,functions and powers etc. of the National Commission forElementary Education (NCEE). It needs to be noted that thegovernment has already moved a Bill in the Parliament forconstitution of National Commission for Children (NCC). Thoughit is too early to comment upon the NCC but one thing is clearthat the NCEE as contemplated in the Bill is totally toothlessand very weak body having no power to take any action againstthe State on its failure to perform its duties assigned to it bythe Bill. The NCEE is totally devoid of powers in granting anyrelief to the aggrieved citizen, student or parent against theState. The multiple bodies will only do more harm thanfurthering the cause of the children. It is submitted that theNCEE is neither required nor desirable. Instead thereof, somejudicial forum ought to have been created empowering it topass appropriate orders and directions and to enforce them.The body should be such that could be easily accessible to anordinary citizen of this country. Any forum other than a judicialone would be unworkable. We are faced with a situation wherethe State is totally insensitive to the educational rights andother rights of the children. That all the District Judges of thecountry could be authorized by law to act as a judicial forum todeal with the complaints relating to violation of provisions ofthe Act.

(12) Section 46 - Redressal of Grievances Regarding Non-Implementation of School-related Provisions of this Act, Section47- State-Level Regulatory Authority: These Sections providefor three-tier machinery for redressal of the grievances. Theprovisions give tiresome and ineffective mechanism. Thismechanism is there to frustrate the complaint and harass thecomplainant. It is also there to hamper the move of acomplainant to approach directly the Court of Law. Theprovisions are silent as to what is the mechanism available to acomplainant, if these authorities do not act within the stipulatedtime. In fact, we need a quick remedial mechanism. We do notneed so many authorities and so much time to have to take an


effective decision in the nature of complaints that may be arisingout of the provisions of the Act. A complaint relating to violationof child's right to education is not adversarial in nature, and,therefore, it needs most immediate attention and quick solution.As submitted above, the appropriate provisions may be enactedempowering all the District Judges in the country to takecognizance of violations of right to education without therebeing a need of a formal complaint, and to issue appropriatedirections and orders and non-compliance of the directions andorders should be viewed seriously and should entail both civiland criminal liability.

(13) Section 48 - Ensuring Participation in Elementary Education:This provision says that no person shall prevent a child fromparticipating in elementary education provided thatnotwithstanding anything contained in the Child Labour(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, no person shall employor otherwise engage a child in a manner that renders her aworking child. That Section 2 (tt) defines "working child" meansa child who: (i) works for wages, whether in cash or in kind, or(ii) works for her own family in a manner, which prevents herfrom participation in elementary education.

This provision takes us nowhere. That similar provisions exist in allmost all the existing compulsory education laws in various Statesand Union Territories started with Delhi Primary Education Act,1960. The experience of last 45 years tells us that such aprovision has never resulted in bringing the mass of workingchildren with in the folds of formal school system. The situationhas rather gone from bad to worse. The Article 21-A mandatesState to provide free and compulsory elementary education toevery child between six and fourteen years of age. It has beenuniversally accepted that both compulsory education and childlabour cannot go together. One has to give way to another.Therefore, the child labour has to go completely to give way tocompulsory education. The prevailing practice of child labouris unconstitutional and is squarely hit by Articles 14, 21 and21-A of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the existing legislationsrelating to child labour, instead of completely banning the childlabour in all its forms perpetuate the child labour. You cannotaddress the constitutional educational rights of 10 crores outof school children without completely prohibiting the child labour


in all its forms. It is very much required that the governmentmust show its will to bring a clear cut provision in this Bill,thereby prohibiting completely the child labour in all its formsand violations thereof must be viewed very seriously. It is boththe objective and the mandate of Article 21-A.

(14) Section 49 - Entry Age for Elementary Education and Procedurefor Computing Age of a child: This provision does not addressthe problem of a destitute child who may not at all be in theposition to produce any type proof of his age as required.Therefore, the provision needs to be modified accordingly.

(15). Section 50 - Responsibility of Parent/Guardian: This provisionsays the if a parent/guardian persistently defaults in dischargeof his responsibility to enroll his child in a school and to facilitateher completion of elementary education, SMC may direct suchparent/guardian to perform compulsory community servicesby way of child care in the school..

This provision is pernicious in nature. It is based totally onmisconceived and irrelevant premise that parents do not wishto send their children to school and the State is innocent. Itprovides punishment for the poor and marginalized parentsonly and no punishment for the mighty State. The scheme ofthe Bill grants complete immunity to the State from any penaltyor punishment in any nature. The State has very cleverlyattempted to shift its own responsibility on the innocent parents.Article 21-A mandates State to provide education to the childrenand the "parent" does not figure therein. Moreover, the words," free" and "compulsory" education used in Article 21-A alsorefer to the State and to none else. Therefore, this provision ishit by Article 21-A.

Moreover, it is also in breach of the pious statement of the thenHon'ble Union Education Minister on behalf of the governmentduring the debate on 86th Constitutional Amendment Bill inthe Parliament that no parent would be punished in the processof enforcement of the right to free and compulsory education.This provision needs to be deleted completely. It is totallyironical that the poor and innocent parents who are not sure ofearning even two times meal a day are being asked to facepunishment on the pretext that they are responsible for children


not going to school.

(16) Section 51 - Penalty for contravention of Sections 15, 17 and48: The provision does not at all provide any penalty againstthe State in the event of State's failure to discharge itsconstitutional and statutory obligations as contemplated undervarious provisions of the Bill. It only penalizes the innocentcitizens for the faults of the State. Moreover, the power to makecomplaint completely rests with the State. This provision is afarce and mockery of the Constitution. The requirement was toempower the people to prosecute the State and not the otherway round.

In the conclusion, it is said that the Bill in its present form iscompletely lacking in its vision and objectives. It does not addressthe educational rights of 10 crore out of school children who areengaged in one or the other work and are child labour. The objectiveof Article 21-A is that all out of school children must be in schooland all the children must receive quality elementary education. Itis not at all possible without prohibiting completely the child labourin all its forms. No attempt has at all been made to completely banthe child labour in all its forms. On the other hand, the Bill permitsthe child labour to perpetuate and grow further. It also does notaddress the educational rights of children with disabilities and otherchildren of weaker sections of society. It attempted at furtheringthe cause of the private schools at the cost of government schoolsystem. It tends to legalize commercializing of education andexploitation of innocent citizens by the private schools. The provisionof providing admission to children of weaker sections under 25%quota, in the present form, would only lead to trauma for suchchildren as well as to their parents. It has also attempted atpunishing the parents and granting absolute immunity to the State.Law needs to empower citizens to prosecute the State for its failureto implement the right to education, but unfortunately, it hasattempted otherwise. It empowers the State to prosecute theinnocent citizens for its own criminal negligence. The Bill in itspresent form, if legislated, would do more harm than to serve theinterest of children for whom it is enacted. Therefore, the Bill in itspresent form needs to be rejected by the people. It needs to bemodified urgently. This article is a contribution to the ongoing debateon the Bill all over the country.

(Ashok Agarwal is a lawyer and civil rights activist and can be contacted [email protected])


On School Education

"In a world based on science and technology, it is education thatdetermines the level of prosperity, welfare and security of the

people. On the quality and number of persons coming out of ourschools and colleges will depend our success in the great enterpriseof national reconstruction the principal objective of which is to raisethe standard of living of our people"- Kothari Commission

Right To Education Bill A Far Off Promise: The Constitution of ourcountry states that "The State shall endeavor to provide within aperiod of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution,for free and compulsory education for all children until they completethe age of fourteen years." (Constitution of India, Directive Principlesof State Policy, Article 45)

The reality is to the contrary. The intervention and interpretation ofthe Supreme Court stating that education is a right made thegovernments consider the enactment of the right to education. In1997, the 83rd amendment was introduced into Parliament toestablish basic education as a fundamental right guaranteed bythe State. This process that is at least a decade old by now is notyet complete with the successive Central governments displayinglack of political will. Recent reports emanating from the mediasuggest that the Human Resources Development Ministry was askedby the Finance Minister and the Planning Commission DeputyChairman to go slow in the placing of this Bill before the Parliament.


The reason is that the State is not in a position to bear the enormousfinancial burden this would entail upon it.

The draft Bill that was circulated has many lacunae that need to beimmediately corrected to reap the real benefits from the saidlegislation. The Bill seeks to grant this right only to those childrenwho are in the age group of 6-14 years. Many children would bedeprived of this right at the entry level itself if the Bill does notinclude the 0-5 years age group under its purview. Moreover theBill puts the entire responsibility of imparting education on thefamily i.e. parents, and thus is absolving the state of its responsibility.The Bill states that the government on its own cannot achieve thetask of universalisation of elementary education and that privateparticipation has to be encouraged, which is a dangerous propositionthat will further commercialise the education at the school leveland leave many children out of school.

Privatisation And Commercialisation Of School Education: Thegenesis for this privatisation and commercialisation of educationcan be traced to the abdication of its responsibilities by the State.As the Programme of SFI points out, "The deepening of the neo-liberal reforms since the closing decades of the last century hasseen the State abdicating from its responsibility of disseminatingeducation in the country. Due to this failure of the State, privateeducational institutes are mushrooming throughout the country witha disastrous impact on fees, admission policy and democratic rights."

The policy of the government to withdraw from the education sectorhas adversely affected the school education. Rampantcommercialisation of school education has become a phenomenon.Most of the private schools take donations contrary to thegovernment rules and deny admissions to the poor and marginalisedsections. Recently the Delhi High Court has ruled that schools thathave availed of concessions from the government in whatever formthat might be should reserve 25% of the seats to the poor andmarginalised sections. This is nowhere implemented. The Courtrulings against the conduct of examinations, interviews for admissionof students into the nursery sections too is violated by theseinstitutes.

The precise number of private schools in the country is not knownbut available government data show they are mushrooming. Whilethe number of private unaided primary schools increased six-fold


and private recognised schools three-fold between 1970 and 2002,the number of government and local body schools fell by over 10percentage points during the same period. According to the latestNational Sample Survey Organisation data, the proportion ofstudents attending private unrecognised primary schools hasincreased in the last decade.

Yash Aggarwal in his study "Public and Private Partnership in PrimaryEducation in India" (National Institute of Education Planning andAdministration, 2000), notes that between 1986 and 1993, theenrolment (to primary classes) in private aided schools rose at acompounded annual growth rate of 9.5 per cent, while thecorresponding figure for government/local body schools was 1.4per cent. According to a study by Anuradha De et al (Economic andPolitical Weekly, December 28, 2002), in U.P., Bihar and Rajasthanno new government school has been set up in the last decade inthe urban areas. There has been a mushrooming of private schoolsin the rural areas. According to Vimala Ramachandran ("The bestof times, the worst of times", Seminar, April 2004), states such asUttar Pradesh and Bihar, with low literacy levels, have seen anexponential growth in the number of private schools - almost everyvillage/hamlet now has a "teaching shop". A study by Amy LouiseKazmin estimates that nearly 36 per cent of children in U.P. attendprivate schools ("Why India's poor pay for private schools", BusinessWeek, April 2000). It is due to the direct and indirect encouragementof the State that we are witnessing widespread privatisation in thefield of education right from the elementary level.

The government on the other hand is slowly bleeding thegovernment institutions to death by starving them of funds andinfrastructure. Recently there is a phenomenon to 'lease' thegovernment schools to private industries and voluntaryorganisations. In the capital city Delhi itself some of the governmentschools are 'leased' to Coca Cola, while in Karnataka many schoolsare 'leased' to Wipro. Some state governments have put upadvertisements in the newspapers inviting bidders to take thegovernment schools for lease. Thus in this way the government istrying to abdicate its responsibility of imparting elementary andprimary education to the children.

The growth of private institutes is also followed by an increase inthe cases of malpractices in the field of education. The unhealthycompetition unleashed by the private institutions to market


themselves showing their results brought corruption into educationsystem. The system of teaching too underwent a thorough churningwith the emphasis shifting to ensure a better pass percentage tothe wards. The ends became more important than the means androt learning and memorizing theories took precedence over thedevelopment of analytical skills.

Private institutions used the media and the advertising world toinfluence peoples' minds by propagating the myth that qualityeducation is present only in these institutions. But according to thestudy done by Anuradha De, the new private schools are no better.For instance, most schools were set up in the house of the schoolmanager concerned, and children crowded in small rooms. Even ifthe school was a recognised one, the classrooms were crampedand dingy, and lacked teaching aids and other facilities such as alibrary. If at all there was a playground, it was the 10 feet by 10feet courtyard of the house. Very few schools had trained teachers.The state of the unrecognised schools was even worse.

Yash Aggarwal too in his study of 878 unrecognised private schoolsin 13 blocks of Haryana, conducted in 2000, observed that teacherswere, in general, unqualified and poorly paid and had had notraining. The study pointed out that the number of unrecognisedschools was doubling every five years.

This in no way does deny the fact that there are some privateinstitutions that provide quality education to the children. The sorrystate of affairs in the government institutions added to theirpropaganda and drove a considerable section of parents towardsprivate institutions. The desire among the people to educate theirwards at any cost also gave opportunities for the privatemanagements to commercialise education.

It is an accepted fact that the neo-liberal economic policies haveincreased the income disparities in our country. On one hand, wesee the elite sections in the society who are ready to go to anyextent to show-off their wealth. On the other, we have the majoritypoor and middle class people who are working hard to see theirends meet. This is reflected in the education system too. The 1999PROBE report points to the existence of "multi tracks" - differenttypes of schooling for different sections. The poor and thedisadvantaged go to public schools; the middle-class and those inthe lower socio-economic ladder to private schools that are either


aided, unaided, recognised or unrecognised; the rich to the high-fee-charging private schools; the elite to schools offeringinternational certifications; and some to informal or non-formalschools. This is a response not merely to the differentiated marketdemand, but to government policy. Thus the world of education,which was thought upon to wipe out inequities prevalent in societyin fact is getting divided into two worlds-one for the haves and theother for the have nots, quite contrary to the vision suggested bythe Kothari Commission.

Common School System: Kothari Commission states that this'hierarchical structure' in our education system is 'transplanted inIndia by the British' and has got 'no place in our society we desireto create'. It states unequivocally that it is the 'responsibility of theeducation system to bring the different social classes and groupstogether and thus promote the emergence of an egalitarian andintegrated society'. It also identifies that the education systeminstead of addressing these concerns 'is tending to increase socialsegregation and to perpetuate and widen the class distinctions'. Itlaments over the fact that 'good education, instead of being availableto all children from every stratum of the society, is available to onlya small minority which is usually selected not the basis of talentbut on the basis of its capacity to pay fees'. This type of educationsystem argues the Commission 'hampers the development andidentification of the national pool of talent' and is thus 'undemocratic'.In order to overcome these evils and achieve national developmentthe Commission suggests the country to move towards the 'commonschool system of public education'. The Education Policy of 1968thus focussed on "the common school system" open for all children'irrespective of caste, creed, community, religion, economicconditions or social status' and where access to good educationwill 'depend not on wealth or class but on talent' and in which no'tuition fee is charged'. Those were the times fresh from the freedomstruggle and the ideals of the freedom fighters shaped many of ourpolicies. But in these days of ardent adherence to neo-liberaleconomics the government hardly kept this promise and theseconcepts are conveniently pushed to the back seat. The proposedRight to Education Bill intends to give it a silent burial by giving theprivate institutions a considerable role to play in imparting educationto all.

The Question Of Government Spending And Funding: At present in


India only about 4% of the GDP and 3.5% of the centralgovernment's budget is spent on the education sector. Indiacommitted less of its resources on primary education than mostlow-income countries. The expenditure on elementary educationhad declined from 55 per cent of the total for the sector in the1950s to less than 35 per cent in the 1990s. As a result, over 40 percent of India's population is illiterate. An average Indian spendsjust about two years in school, while a Chinese spends five and aSouth Korean nine.

The present level of public spending on education is grosslyinadequate for the task of providing education to all. As a result, avast proportion of potential students who belong to deprived sectionsof society are being denied access to education. The governmentshould fulfill its responsibility of providing school education for alland equality of access. To begin with, government spending oneducation must be increased to at least 6% of the GDP, as promisedin the CMP, and 10% of the Union Budget. This level would be inkeeping with the recommendation of various expert bodies and thenorms followed by many other countries, including developing ones.

Rs. 5000 crores, realised through the 2% cess, is inadequate forthe purpose of universalizing education. The Tapas MajumdarCommittee set up by the Ministry of Human Resource Developmentin 1996 estimates an additional requirement of Rs.140,000 croresfor the next 10 years; this amounts to 0.7 per cent of the GDPevery year. The government should immediately increase thebudgetary allocations and ensure that there is no dearth of fundsfor the education sector.

The withdrawal of the state from social sector and the subsequentreduction in the finances are placing huge burdens on the parentswho intend to send their wards to school. In spite of the absence oftuition fee at the primary level in some government schools theprivate costs of education that the parents are forced to bear arehindering them from allowing their children to continue in theschools. The PROBE report states that the average cost of sendinga child to primary school as calculated by various agencies excludingclothing expenses as Rs. 212 (NSS estimate 1986-87), forelementary level as Rs 478 (NCAER estimate, 1994) while the PROBEestimate (1996) calculates it to be Rs. 318. It is difficult for a poorfamily to spend so much on education as majority of the people areliving below the official poverty line.


The World Bank itself acknowledges that "To reach the target ofuniversal primary education by 2015, school systems with lowcompletion rates will need to start now to train teachers, buildclassrooms, and improve the quality of education. Most important,they will have to remove barriers to attendance such as fees andlack of transportation, and address parents' concern for the safetyof their children." (Emphasis added) India is already termed as oneof the few countries that would default on the millenniumdevelopment goals specifically the one that calls for achievinguniversal primary education. This conclusion is from the fact thatthe targets set for monitoring the progress of efforts towardsachieving the goal are not reached by our country while Sri Lankaand Bangladesh are on track.

It is the duty of the State to ensure that no 'private cost' is incurredon education. The state should provide for free education up tosecondary level and this should include all the costs like textbooks,workbooks, all sorts of fees including examination, library, laboratoryfee etc. The students who are in need of transport or lodging facilitiestoo should be provided free of cost.

The two important schemes launched by the Union government inthe field of school education are the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and themid-day meal scheme. The resources allotted to these schemesshould be increased and monitored properly to ensure that thebenefits are accrued to the deserving and needy people. There arereports in the media about the under utilization of resources allottedunder the SSA scheme even in cities like Mumbai. A propermechanism has to be evolved to make the officials responsible forthe proper utilization of resources allotted.

The mid-day meal scheme started throughout the country afterthe Supreme Court directive also has to be implemented properlyas there are many complaints of poor quality of food served. Thereare also instances where teachers are given the responsibility tocook the food and this is adversely affecting the teaching in theschool. In some states voluntary organisations and catering agenciesare given the responsibility and this is also affecting the food that isbeing served. To prevent all such irregularities in the future thegovernment should evolve a permanent mechanism by appointinga cook, helper and the necessary staff and provide them with theneeded infrastructure to cook the food. This instills accountabilityand also guarantees a minimum amount of quality for the food


that is served.

Infrastructure An immediate effect of the low public funding ineducation is the dilapidated infrastructure found in the governmentinstitutes. According to a study by Anuradha De et al (Economicand Political Weekly, December 28, 2002), in U.P., Bihar andRajasthan, in the urban areas, most government schools functionin rented buildings, usually old, dilapidated and woefully cramped.Worse, two to three schools function from the same building. Often,children huddle in unprotected places - in verandahs with menplaying cards near them. The study concluded that "on the whole,children in the government schools were not comfortable, nor wasthe environment secure or conducive to learning". According to thestudy "Accessing primary education - Going beyond the classroom"by Rekha Kaul (Economic and Political Weekly, January 13, 2001),in Karnataka, 79 per cent of the government schools lacked thetoilet facility; 35 of the 72 government schools surveyed had nodrinking water; less than 10 per cent had electricity connection;and less than half a play-area. In most schools, teachers' postsremained unfilled for years. In many schools, one teacher managedfour primary classes in a single room. According to the PROBEsurvey, 63 per cent of the schools had leaking roofs, 52 per centhad no playground, 58 per cent had no drinking water, 89 per centhad no functioning toilet, and 27 per cent had no blackboards.Only 2 per cent had all the facilities while 8 per cent had none atall. The retention of students in education at the primary andelementary level also depends on the level of infrastructure thatexists in the schools.

Foreign Funding In Elementary And Primary Education: Until thelate 1980s the government of India strongly resisted external fundingfor education programmes. Since 1980s the Banks' investment ineducation in India have grown from an almost negligible amountto over $2 billion. This funding obviously does not come withoutany conditionality attached with it. The World Bank did the initialfunding for the DPEP scheme. World Bank explicitly encouragesprivatisation of education and reduction of the government role inthe social sector so that its expenditure is curtailed. It alsoencourages the idea to increase the fees collected from the studentsto cover the recurring costs incurred and also moots the idea forthe collection of user charges. The system of appointing parateachers was started at their instance and so is the formation of


village school education committees. It has prescribed a change incourse content in some states and also in the teaching methodology.The World Bank scoffs at the Indian efforts to universalize educationbefore taking money from it and names it as the hangover of theswadeshi agitation against the British. In a way it suggests thatonly taking funds from the international donor agencies and fulfillingtheir conditionalities can achieve these goals.

Funding now comes from international - bilateral and multilateral -sources. With each donor pushing his own agenda and solution,primary education has become further stratified with a variety ofschools emerging under different programmes. For example, whilealternative school programmes such as the Rajiv Gandhi Patasalas(schools) in Rajasthan, the Education Guarantee Scheme in MadhyaPradesh, and the Sishu Shiksha Kendras in some northern Statesrun in rented single rooms, the regular primary schools have up tothree rooms. Also, infrastructure investment, teacher-student ratio,teacher training, learning materials and so on differ according tothe programme under which the schools are run. The governmentshould neither succumb to the pressures of international donoragencies and change the education system according to theirdictates nor accept their conditionalities that harm our nationalinterests.

Gender Disparity The lower rate of enrolment of girls is a reflectionof the patriarchal values present in our society. The preference of ason over a girl is reflected even in the education system. The girlswho are lucky enough to take birth in this country are discriminatedas we have a bad male-female ratio in education, worse than someof our neighbours. Even the few girls who have joined in class Idrop out in huge numbers because of various factors. One importantreason is the costs involved in imparting education even at theelementary and primary levels. The higher the fees the more thechances of girls getting dropped out from education. According tothe NSS 58th Round, around 20 per cent of villages do not havepre-primary facilities even within 2 km of the village, and 12 percent do not have primary schools within 2 km. This is an especiallyimportant issue for girl children as the proximity of the school tothe residential areas also plays an important role in their enrolmentand continuation in the schools and this makes the physicalrequirement for more schools even greater. The lack of security inresidential schools for girls and instances of sexual harassment


and abuse also impede the education of girl child. Some of theother reasons that force a girl to drop out of education are herrequirement for the household chores and baby-sitting. Openingup adequate number of anganwadi and balwadi centres, crèches,starting schools in the neighbourhoods, appointing lady teachersand staff in the residential schools and providing for adequatesecurity are some of the steps that can help increasing theparticipation of girls in education together with an intense campaignagainst the patriarchal mindset prevalent in the society.

Caste Discrimination It is a matter of shame that schools andeducation that have to do away with social inequities are used toreinforce social distinctions existing in the society. There are manyschools in our country where caste discrimination is practisedcorrupting the young minds. Teachers, who have got a major roleto play in wiping out caste based discrimination, in some placesare practicing it. The refusal of upper caste teachers to take classesin schools consisting of majority SC students too is documented.These tendencies have to be fought and the culprits should bepunished strictly. Students coming from the lower castes aregenerally from the poorer strata of the society and are from thetoiling sections. Their abject poverty prevents them from enrollingin schools and the prevalence of caste discrimination further vitiatesthe atmosphere.

Kothari Commission states that for the tribal students especially itis necessary to develop a system of education 'responsive to thecultural and economic needs of the people'. It also states that the'teachers should be invariably conversant with the tribal languages'and that the 'schools should be made to harmonise with theenvironment. Vacations and holidays should coincide withagricultural and forest operations and social festivities.' Unless thisis done, as soon as possible, our education system cannot attractthe tribals and even if it does will not be able to retain them forlong.

Dropouts And Retention: One of the important problems concerningschool education is the question of retention of all the studentsenrolled in the schools. India is a country with huge dropout rates.The rate of dropouts is especially higher among girls and ST andSCs-the most backward sections among the society. Unless thevarious factors that lead to the dropout from the schools arecorrected we cannot retain children in schools. Some of these are


flexibility in school timings (modelling the academic session by takinginto consideration the agricultural practices of the region, givingholidays during peak agricultural activity etc) and curricula to makeschooling more relevant, linking schooling with employmentopportunities, remodelling the teaching activity in the schools togenerate interest among the students etc. Provision of schools withinwalking distance, making child care facilities like crèches availablein all localities, increasing the number of women teachers, providingmid-day meals and other supportive schemes, reducing the privatecosts (like providing free textbooks, uniforms, etc) will also ensurethat the number of students dropping out comes down.

Poverty the most important factor that determines many of thedecisions taken by a family should not be forgotten while discussingall other factors. The reducing employment opportunities in therural areas because of the neo-liberal policies is forcing large numberof people to migrate from the villages and this adversely affectsthe education of the children, often forcing them to dropout. Alsopoverty forces many children to work than to be present in theschools irrespective of their likes and dislikes. As John KennethGalbraith has said "There is in our time no well educated literatepopulation that is poor, there is no illiterate population that is otherthan poor." The following table clearly shows this fact-

India 1998-99

Teachers: The role played by the teachers in the entire educationsystem is very crucial. The interest of the student to stay andcontinue in the school is dependent on the qualities of a teacher. Ateacher has to motivate the students and develop the students'outlook about the society around them and the world. The teachershould mingle with the local community in which the school is locatedand understand the life of the people of that community, as thiswould be of immense use when she takes the classes. The teachershould win the confidence of her students and help them overcometheir problems. For all these to happen there should be propertraining to the teacher and also a healthy teacher-student ratio.


The government wants to push this ratio to 1:40 while the idealwould be 1:30. The government is compromising on thequalifications of the teachers appointed under pressure frominternational funding agencies to cut its expenditure on education.Instead of appointing regular and qualified teachers unqualifiedand contract teachers are appointed to fill in the vacancies. This ishaving a harmful affect on the quality of education imparted in theschools in the short term and on the society in the long term assub-standard teaching affects the future generations of the country.The government thus should take enough care and ensure thatonly qualified people are appointed as teachers and they are givenregular in-service training.

NCF: Though there are some good aspects in the NCF 2005, it failsto state in unequivocal terms the rejection of communalisation oftextbooks and keeping them free from the influence of religion.Local knowledge is given importance in the teaching process. Whilethis is true that local knowledge has to be imparted to the students,it should be noted that this in no way could replace textbooks. Ifthis is attempted, it will lead to a situation where in the name oflocal knowledge, all sorts of irrational theories will be taught. Toomuch emphasis is given to the reduction of burden. Nobody opposesthe reduction of burden on the students but this should not lead toa situation where the student will not be open to new forms ofemerging knowledge. The elitist bias in the NCF has to be correctedand should be made to address the ground realities existing in ourcountry.

A scientific syllabus has to be introduced throughout the countryand all unwanted deadwood has to be removed. The curriculumframework should bring in a uniformity of standard of educationbetween different states by suggesting a near uniformity of syllabi.Textbooks too should not be changed frequently though all the up-to-date developments in the fields of science and technology, socialsciences should be incorporated in them. All unscientific, communal,obscurantist influences should be eliminated from the textbooks.The government should take the responsibility of designing, printingand distribution of the textbooks. They should be made available insufficient numbers and in time to all the students irrespective ofthe place where they are studying.

Communalisation Of Education And Syllabus: The change ofgovernment at the Centre with the defeat of BJP led NDA has


resulted in putting to a halt the drive for communalisation ofeducation system. The UPA government has promised to detoxifythe entire education system from its communal overtones andinitiated some efforts. The pace of detoxification is far fromsatisfactory and disappointing. Though all the committees that wereset-up to look into the distorted textbooks suggested their removal,only portions were removed from them and alternate textbookswere suggested only after the completion of a full academic year.Many education institutes that are run by the communal elementseven now are getting aid from the government in various formsand names. This should be immediately stopped and all the institutesthat are run against the basic provisions of our Constitution shouldbe immediately derecognised.

Communalisation of education in BJP ruled states: Eventhough the BJP has lost power at the Centre and thus their effort topoison the education system with communal overtures has beenstalled the danger still persists. Communalisation of education iscarried out in all the BJP ruled states through a change in textbooksand syllabus. In Rajasthan, the government has even permittedthe establishment of a private university run by the RSS.

The communal and parochial elements propagate their sectarianviews through the syllabi. This manifestation is clearly visible in thenumber of institutes that are run by RSS, its sister concerns andalso in some of the institutes run by the minority communalelements. In fact the major threat posed to the secular fabric ofour country emanates from these unscrupulous institutes. Theseinstitutes are used as a breeding ground for the production ofirrational, communal and frenzied youth. It is the responsibility ofthe secular state to check these institutes. The Union governmentshould identify all such institutes in our country and shouldcrackdown on them immediately.

Vocational Education: Even though there are provisions forvocational education in our present educational set-up they arehardly known to the people at large. This is largely due to theabsence of necessary planning that should go in to their introductionand also the uncertainty that surrounds around them vis-à-vis theiremployment generation capacity. Moreover the meagre resourcesallocated to them and the lack of proper infrastructure compoundsthis problem. The fascination for higher education and the blindbelief that a university degree alone will fetch a decent employment


also drives people away from the vocational stream at the secondaryeducation level. The sorry state of ITIs (ITC) is also adding tothese factors. Unless the creative and productive potential of thevast number of students completing their secondary education butstaying away from higher education is properly used our countrycannot reap the socio-economic dividends from the investmentmade. Without this our education system will be producing justconsumers for the markets to be exploited by the MNCs and notproducers and wealth creators for the society.

All those who complete primary education will have to be providedwith vocational schooling of 2-3 years or full secondary educationfor 3 years. Those children who complete vocational schooling of2-3 years should be provided with jobs with salaries and allowancesthat would ensure a decent living. Till they are provided withemployment, they should be given unemployment relief orallowance.

The present system of education that is emphasising too much ontheoretical knowledge to the exclusion of manual labour is splittingthe people into two separate groups with distinct attitudes. Thishas to be immediately rectified. The dichotomy between mentaland manual labour has to be immediately eliminated. At everyterminal point of education there should be a rounding off and thevocational education imparted with practical experiences in industry,agriculture and services should compliment the theoreticalknowledge learnt.

Work experience should be part of the curriculum right from theprimary level. It should depend on the children's ability and maturity.Frequent trips to fields and industries, where manual work takesplace also have to be organised to instil in the minds of the studentsthe value and respect for manual labour.

Children passing their secondary examination, should be assuredof certain specified job or profession depending upon their abilitiesand aptitudes and taking into consideration the needs of the nationaleconomy and the training provided to them. They should be paidallowances during their period of training and till they get jobs theyshould get unemployment allowance. Even those who have takenup jobs should be provided with facilities to improve their skills andknowledge and to appear for higher education studying in theirspare time.


Examination System: Examinations are creating terror amongthe children and they are frightening them and creating a lot ofstress among them. The present day examination system is testingjust the memory skills of the student and not the knowledge learntin all these years of schooling. They are looked at more as tools forelimination than as means to identify the weakness of the studentand rectify them. The aim of examinations should be to assess thestandard of the students before promoting them to the next higherclass and to find out in which subject or topic the student is weakand help in rectifying it at the appropriate time. The purpose isthus to help and encourage the student in improving their academicstandards and not to act as a bar on their promotion.

The results provided in the examinations awarding ranks to thestudents are helping the private managements to propagate theirinstitute rather than the student. This system has to be replacedby a system of awarding grades to the students according to theperformance in the entire academic year. There should be internalexaminations to check the progress made by the students and tohelp them overcome their weakness. There should be one terminalexamination at the end of each stage-after they complete class VIIand after class X. At the end of the day examinations shouldencourage the student to strive more and instil a sense of self-confidence.


The Central Government'sUnparallel Negligence Towards

Elementary Education

Ritabrata Banerjee

It was long back in the 1980's our organization gave the slogan-Education for all, Job for all. Over a decade after the UNESCO in

1993 organized an international conference. The main objectivebehind holding this conference was to guarantee education for allchildren. Countries like China, India , Indonesia ,Brasil, Pakistan,Bangladesh, Egypt,Mexico and Nigeria where the population is largewhere invited in this conference. In our capital this conference wasorganized from 12th to 16th December 1993. While giving the closingspeech in that conference the Prime Minister P.V. Narasinha Raoquoted a famous sloke from the Gita which meant that theknowledge and wisdom is the noblest of things. Before that for 5days the conference discussed at full length on the question ofuniversalisation of primary and elementary education. (Childrenbetween age 6-14)

Since then a decade and two have passed. According to UNESCOreports the literacy percentage of people over the age group 15 is81.9%. in developing countries the percentage is 98.7% and in ourcountry is 61%. The number of children who are eligible to go tothe schools but are unable to do so amounts to 10 crores to 30


lakhs.

17 % of the world population resides in India and the percentageof children outside schools are 20.4% P.V.Narasinha Rao have diedbut the present government's Prime Minister also belongs to thesame political party and was also an important man in the NarasinhaRao cabinet. The human resource development minister of the thencabinet is again in office today. Now under the leadership of Mr.Arjun Singh the HRD ministry ask formulated a model right ofeducation bill and sent it to the state governments for enacting itat the state level. It is to be remembered that the UPA governmentin its National Common Minimum Program promised to universalizeaccess to quality basis education. There was also a promise to risepublic spending in education to at least 6% of the GDP with atleast half this amount being spent on primary and secondary sectors.Even after the passage of 2 years since the UPA government hascome to power this very crucial commitment made in the MCMPhas remain unfulfilled. It is a matter of grave concern that the UPAgovernment has now taken the decision of not enacting a centrallegislation on right to education because of opposition from thefinance ministry and the planning commission sitting lack ofresources to implement it. it is only a brazen violation of the NCMPby the congress led UPA government. The 86th constitutionalamendment, which made free and compulsory education, afundamental right for all children in the age group of 6 to 14 waspassed in 2002. The central government was failed to enact centrallegislation to implement the constitutional mandate. As the centralgovernment is in the process of withdrawing itself from sectors ofeducation we want to take a look in the historical prospective fromwhich this very proposal originated.

In 1912 Gokhel proposed for the 2nd timing imperial legislativecouncil for universalisation of fee and compulsory education. Itwas turned down by majority votes. It was a first effort touniversalize elementary education in India. In 1948 a committeeheaded by B.G.Kher was formed with the objective of expandingeducation and also to decide on the economic responsibility of thestate and central. The committee proposed that 10 percentages ofthe total expenditure of the central government and 20 percentagesof the total expenditure of the state governments must be spenton education. In 1951 again under B.G.kher's presidency acommittee was formed. The committee made some definite


proposals to make the entire process of expansion of educationfaster. The Muthaliyar committee formed in 1952 and the Kotharicommission formed in 1964 made important suggestions. In 1968and again in 1986 national education policy was announced. The1986 declaration categorically spoke of universalizing elementaryeducation within 2000. The suggestions of the committees and thecommissions although very much progressive did not yield thedesired result due to the role of the central government. Meanwhilein 1990 a committee Rammurthy a president and in 1996 acommittee headed by Muhiram Shaikia was formed. Interestinglyin 1993 the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Unnikrishnan v/s government of Andra Pradesh categorically spoke of educationas a fundamental right. Giving apt importance to that judgmentthe Shaikia committee made some recommendations. A committeeheaded by Tapas majumdar was formed which in 1999recommended to invest Rs.136992 crores to universalize primaryeducation within the period 1999- 2007-08. It also spoke aboutthe main role of the Central Government in implementing thescheme. There was also the suggestion of collecting money througheducation cess.

The BJP led Government in 2003 prepared the "Free and compulsoryeducation Bill 2003. The Government in that bill also spoke ofwithdrawing its responsibility from the sector. There was a strongprotest from the non-BJP state Governments. The Governmentthen prepared a draft bill in 2004 with some changes. Under theUPA regime a committee headed by Kapil Sibal mentioned that inorder to bring all children below the age 14 under the preview ofeducation from 2006-2012 Rs 321196 crores are required.

In the new bill sent to the states, the Centre that cost sharing onimplementing the legislation would be contingent upon the stateGovernments accepting the Model Bill in toto has proposed it.Burdening the state Governments in this manner, which alreadybear the lions share of expenditure on education in the country istotally unjustified and is a sure recipe for subverting the Right toEducation . The draft to the Right to Education bill 2005 itself hadinvited severe criticisms from many quarters, for the dilution ofseveral provisions. The Model Right to Education Bill 2006 nowbeing proposed by the Congress led UPA Government has furtherdiluted many of the crucial provisions made in 2005 Draft Bill.

Most importantly, the provision in the draft Bill of reserving at least


25% free seats for poor children in private schools has been doneaway with.

The entire section on the Central Governments responsibility in theDraft Bill, including the provision of financial assistance to the states,has been delted. The provision for constituting the NationalCommission form Elementary Education contained in the Draft Billhas also been done away with.

The Central Government has proved itself to be totally anti-poor.Shamelessly rejecting all the recommendations made by so manyeducation committees and commission and not taking intoconsideration examples far and near the Congress led UPA.Government had registered its unparallel negligence to the questionof elementary education. A strong movement nation wide againstthis time stand of the Congress led UPA is a call of time.

The Government has gone to the extent of making its continuousassistance to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, conditional upon the StateGovernments acceptance of the new proposed bill in toto. It hasbeen argued by the Central Government that if the stateGovernments does not accept the new Bill it will reduce the 75:25ratio of expenditure on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to a 50:50 ratio.

Universalisation of elementary education has a direct relation withthe problem of child labour . A recent International labourOrganisation (ILO) report on child labour has underscored the linkbetween education and eradicating child labour. The ILO's secondglobal report on child labour clams that over the past four yearsthe number of children trapped in hazardous forms of work hadactually reduced by 26% while there was an 11% decline in allforms of child labour. The report is optimistically titled-End of childlabour; Within Reach. The overall decline has been noticeable inLatin America and Caribbean but not so much in South Asia or subSaharan Africa. From the Chinese experience it is very evidentmass education has been very much effective in fighting the problemof child labour. There have been multiple entry points in dealingwith child labours. But the greatest progress has been in recognizingthe link between elimination child labour and guaranteeing ourown very slogan "Education for all ". But it seems that the Congressled UPA government is not very interested in this regard. It is veryessential to take a look into the Chinese example. In 1949 only25% of the Chinese children were in primary school. in 1982. 93%


attended primary school and the vast majority went to juniorsecondary school. China has a nine-year compulsory educationpolicy. The congress UPA Government can also look towards Brazila country where eight years of education was made compulsory,accompanied by a strong public policy commitment under the EveryChild in School programme. Poor families were given grants iftheir children attended schools. An ILO report says that in 2004only 2.9% Brazilian children were outside school.

The ILO report openly declares that education is a human rightand a public good and that all fees and charges for primary schoolshould be abolished. Some African countries have proved the saying.If Brazil, China and African countries like Uganda, Burundi, Kenyacan what is our problem? The UPA must answer in our interest.

right to education a failed promisesficec.org/pdf/right to education.pdfright to education a failed...

Documents