COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL 2003

What We Need Is Good Quality Common School System

 Ashok Agarwal

THE government has failed to establish a common school system (CSS) despite the incorporation of Kothari commission recommendations (1964-66) in the National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1968, 1986 and 1992. While reviewing the NPE (1986) in 1990, the Ramamurthi committee had also recommended establishment of a common system. Now we have before us the draft of the Free and Compulsory Education For Children Bill 2003 that is likely to be presented in the coming session of parliament. This is the right time the government should radically redraft the bill in the interest of CSS and get it legislated at the earliest.

For, even if some newspapers are projecting the bill as progressive, the reality is otherwise. If we examine the bill’s provisions, we are afraid that it may operate to keep a majority of the children of masses out of the formal school system rather than bring them in. It may be noted that this is the first central legislation on school education and therefore needs to be comprehensive. In sum, the present bill must be rejected outright and the government asked to redraft it in the interest of good quality CSS, which is the only way to do socio-economic and political justice to this country’s children as was envisaged in the constitution of India.

A BILL FOR THE SUB-STANDARD

On examination of the bill’s provisions, the following points may be noted.

1) It has been left to the government’s discretion to fix the date of its enforcement. This means that even after the bill becomes an act, the government can delay its enforcement.

2) The children below 6 years and above 14 years have been excluded from the definitions of a “child” and “school age.” A girl of 15 years, who has never been to a school, is not entitled to get education under the proposed bill either. Children with disabilities, who are entitled to free education up to 18 years under the provisions of the PWD Act 1995, are not entitled to education under the bill if they are less than 6 or above 14 years. The proposed bill will thus deny education to crores of children out of the 6-14 age group.

3) It provides for two types of school --- one formal and another non-formal. Discretion has been given to the government to decide whether children will receive education in formal or non-formal schools. But, as we all know, a non-formal school functions as a totally sub-standard school where an unqualified teacher, with no physical infrastructure, teaches the children for a few hours. This gives rise to the fear that children from the marginalised sections of people may be herded into non-formal schools, which means no education in fact. The question is: why should there be two sets of school when the government’s experiment with non-formal schools has so far been a dismal failure? Crores of rupees of public money have already been wasted on this experiment. Yet, the government is again bent on pushing the non-formal system through, as part of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, and crores of rupees are being spent under this programme. Why is the government bent upon providing either no education or sub-standard education to the children of the masses? The Sarva Shikha Abhiyan has already started betraying its failure as almost all the out-of-school children are still out of school though under the programme all of them should have been in school by now.

4) What will be the norms of quality education, has been left for the government to decide. This means that the government can always dub the sub-standard as the norm for poor children. It is unfortunate that, even after about 54 years of the constitution’s enactment, the government is unable to decide and incorporate the norms of quality education into the bill. Thus, even the first central legislation on school education is full of so many ifs and buts. The poor will, as usual, get poor quality education and the rich will get good quality education. May one ask: why the bill has itself not laid down the norms?

POOR PARENTS MAY BE PENALISED

5) The bill provides for penalty to the parents who are unable to send their children to school while no penalty is contemplated for the erring officials who fail to provide basic infrastructure conducive to good quality education for the children. Immunity from civil or criminal action has been granted to such officials.

However, the known fact is that, in the changing times of today, the parents do want to send their children to school, and corrective measures are needed more on the demand side than on the supply side. Thus the provision of imposing penalty on the parents is totally unwarranted, and the real intention of the government is to hide its own faults. It is also contrary to the assurance given to parliament by the union HRD minister during the discussion on the 93rd constitutional amendment bill, that parents will not be subjected to any penalty.

6) Some 70 to 80 per cent of the draft bill’s contents has been lifted from the compulsory education legislations already existing in 19 states or union territories. The first compulsory education act was legislated by the parliament for Delhi in 1960, known as Delhi Primary Education Act 1960. this was the model that was followed by many other states. The last one was legislated by Sikkim in 2000. What was the fate of these legislations? Such a question has not even been asked.  

In fact, all these legislations have failed to bring about any change in the situation. Then, why again the same type of legislation now? What is new in this legislation that may be expected to bring about any change? If the earlier legislations have not worked during the past 43 years, is it difficult to understand that the proposed one too will not work? It is better that the government stop making fool of the people.

When the Social Jurist filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in Delhi High Court, highlighting the non-implementation of the provisions of Delhi Primary Education Act 1960, the High Court in its order observed, “We are surprised to find that the attendance authorities have not been appointed by the authorities who are responsible for imparting primary education to children despite the fact that the Delhi Primary Education Act 1960 has been in force for the last 42 years…… In the circumstances, therefore, we direct the concerned authority to appoint as many as it thinks fit to be attendance authorities for the purposes of the Delhi Primary Education Act 1960, keeping in view the child population in Delhi. The attendance authorities shall be appointed within a period of one month.” Unfortunately, despite this court order, attendance authorities have not been appointed to date.

A FRAUD ON POOR CHILDREN

7) By providing for non-formal school for child labourers, the proposed bill can only legalise child labour in this country. Is it not unfortunate? For, about 10 crore child labour in this country will in fact remain uneducated. Is it the constitutional goal or the party-in-power’s goal?

8) “Free education” is not appropriately or correctly defined in the bill. While tuition fee and some other fees will not be charged, the bill has left for the government to decide about the facilities. Does the government not know what facilities are required to enrol the children and retain them in the schools? Why the same has not been properly defined? Why has it been left for the government to decide? For, in the absence of a clear definition, the government can conveniently deny basic facilities to the children of the poor and thereby continue to keep them out of school. This can only reproduce the inequalities the system of education in this country suffers from.

9) The provision in regard to free education to the children of the poor in the unaided recognised private schools seems to be only a fraud. The “power” to fix the percentage of free education to the children of the poor will be given to the attendance authorities. But, can anyone imagine that the strong lobby running the public schools will ever allow the attendance authorities to exercise this power?

The manner in which education to such children may be imparted has also been left for the attendance authorities to decide. The fear is that non-formal schooling will be the manner in which ‘education’ will be imparted to these children. In the absence of specific provisions that these children must be sitting with those who are paying for education, one can never expect that poor children will receive equitable education as a matter of right.

Moreover, while no minimum limit has been prescribed about the number of poor children in quality schools, the maximum has been fixed at 20 per cent. As such, an attendance authority can even decide not to give one per cent of the free seats to these children.

10) Further, according to the bill’s provisions, an eligible child has to be from “below poverty line” sections. In metro cities, however, the minimum wage prescribed under Minimum Wages Act 1948 is such that it may show one as ‘above poverty line’ and, therefore, no child will be found eligible for admission to an unaided recognised private school. It is a different matter that, in practice, more than 80 per cent of the workers are not paid minimum wages in this country. In Delhi, the government has given lands to hundreds of schools either free or at concessional rates with the condition that at least 25 per cent seats will be given to children from the weaker sections. Yet, no school has been complying with this condition. A PIL filed by Social Jurist in this regard is pending in Delhi High Court.

Also, under the provisions of this legislation, a destitute child who is not in a position to submit birth certificate or submit a declaration about her/his date of birth by parents will not be eligible for admission in the school. With the likely result that the destitute children will always remain out of school.

The participants in a day-long deliberation in the consultative meeting on common school system, organised by the Social Jurist on November 1, 2003 at New Delhi, were also of the strong view that the government must establish good quality common school system for achieving the objective of equitable education for all children of this country. The Social Jurist has also invited opinions on the provisions contained in the draft of the Free and Compulsory Education for Children Bill 2003.

(The author is an advocate and convener of the Social Jurist.)