Introduction and Presentation:
Parth Shah
Dr. Shah introduced R Govinda and other participants
and noted that the objective of organizing such roundtables
was to encourage the exchange of ideas between policy
makers and civil society members. He suggested that
the need for discussing Model Rules of the RTE Act
arises so as to formulate proper guidelines on the
basis of which this Act can then be implemented.
Presentation
Dr.
Shah stated that on the whole Centre for Civil Society
is in agreement with the larger philosophical ideas
embodied by the RTE Act. However, he raised six concerns
which can be categorized under the following heads: school
management committee, teacher accountability, school
recognition, school building, legal registration
and 25% reservation in private schools.
School Management Committees (SMCs): Dr.
Shah suggested that RTE stipulations were too inputs
focused rather than outcomes oriented. For this he
suggested that SMCs should evaluate students’ learning
outcomes and teacher competencies. Moreover, SMC
members should be reimbursed for their services to
provide incentives for active and sustained involvement.
Teacher Accountability: It
was suggested that SMCs should have the power to
take disciplinary action against teachers and they
need not be hired on a permanent basis.
School
Recognition: Dr. Shah suggested
that government schools should also comply with norms
and procedures for recognition to raise standards
of government schools. He also raised concerns over
the impact of the closure of unrecognized budget
private schools in three years once failing to gain
recognition.
School
building: Dr.
Shah, contrary to Model Rules, recommended that schools
should have the autonomy to decide how to use schools
buildings after school hours as long as there is
not interference with teaching activities.
Legal
registration: It was suggested
that schools must be registered as legal entities,
not necessarily as public trust or society as stipulated
by the Model Rules. Moreover, for-profit companies
should be allowed to enter the education sector.
25%
reservation in private schools: Reimbursements
to private schools on behalf of the 25% students
from weaker and disadvantaged sections should be
calculated on the basis on recurring and capital
expenditure as opposed to just recurring as suggested
by the rules. Moreover, the model rules remain unclear
on questions of identification, selection, admission,
reimbursement mechanisms and monitoring of the 25%
reservations in private schools. This lack of clarity
according to Dr. Shah needs to be addressed.
Presentation
and Response: R Govinda
R Govinda began by first providing a background to
the consultative process behind the RTE Act and
Rules in which he was closely involved. He was
clear to clarify that his personal views diverged
with government recommendations in some cases.
RTE Design and implementation strategy
-
Paradigm shift: The RTE Act
according to Mr. Govinda signified a paradigm shift
towards greater emphasis on citizen entitlement
of education. He suggests that the RTE Act focuses
on reforms that encourage greater parental involvement
in education, rather than just systemic reforms.
-
Decentralized management and provision: He
highlighted that the responsibility of managing
educational reforms and provisions has been decentralized
at the block level rather than at the panchayati
raj level as some states had not shifted responsibility
of education provision at the panchayati raj level.
-
Private Involvement: Mr. Govinda
is of the view that private involvement in education
is necessary as their involvement and partnership
is likely to reduce educational disparities. In
fact, he personally believes that government can
provide education through alternate means besides
establishing, managing and running schools themselves
as long as they continue to be financiers and regulators
of the system.
-
Harmonization committee: The
creation of a Harmonization Committee has been
recommended to assist Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan at
the state level to provide greater clarity in design
and help departments make adequate changes to be
able to implement the RTE Act and Rules.
Response to Parth Shah’s critique
to RTE Model Rules
-
School Recognition: According
to R Govinda the reason for excluding government
schools from the ambit of recognition requirements
was that government officials themselves would
conduct evaluation for recognition which could
lead to conflict of interest. However, he suggested
that since the schedule stipulating basic minimum
requirements for recognition was part of the law,
in case government schools failed to meet specified
norms and standards, legal action against such
schools could be initiated. He also explained that
the schedule was created so that all schools could
meet basic floor requirements which were needed
to impart education. Moreover, R Govinda with an
assumption that there were approximately 2 lakh
unrecognized schools in the country believed that
all such schools would not need to be shut down
as they will be able to meet specified conditions
within three years.
-
Teachers: R Govinda estimated
that there was a need for an additional 5.5 lakh
teachers beyond the 5 lakh teacher posts lying
vacant at present to meet the student-teacher ratio
of 30: 1 over the next 5 years. He
suggested that the requirement for professional
and permanent teachers was only
applicable to government schools in view of the
existing problem of un-qualified para-teachers.
As for teacher salary, Mr. Govinda believed that
all teachers irrespective of whether in government
or private schools should be paid at least a minimum
basic salary as, if not, this could be legally
contested in view of the principal of equal pay
for equal work. He explained this by giving an
example of the Non-formal education program under
which teachers were only given an honorarium. This
provision was legally contested. Besides this he
also suggested a need for increased efforts towards
teacher training and setting up minimum qualification
requirements.
-
School Management Committees: According
to Mr. Govinda, as per Section 7, SMCs are responsible
for creating a cumulative report card to represent
the comprehensive and continuous evaluation of
students. He suggests that if this is implemented
well, SMCs could successfully evaluate students’ learning
achievements.
-
25% reservations in private schools: According
to R Govinda, stipulations for reimbursement calculations
have been made in the rules. He also indicated
that already existing mechanisms for transfer of
funds in case of grants-in-aid can be used for
reimbursement transfer in case of 25% reservations.
As for identification of the weaker and disadvantaged
sections he believed that it is important to give
private schools autonomy to decide who to admit
as long as they follow the basic guidelines stipulated
in the Act and Rules. R Govinda also suggested
that the definition of neighbourhood in case of
25% reservations could be expanded.
Discussion
P. D. Rai: He suggested
that the implementation of the RTE Act requires adequate
political support. However, this might prove difficult
as unlike the direct outcomes of the mid-day meal
scheme or National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme,
the RTE Act leads to indirect benefits through
teachers and infrastructural development of schools.
Madhu Goud Yaskhi: Shri Yaskhi
suggested that neither enough funds nor enough
strategic planning has been made available for
the implementation of the RTE Act. He also expressed
concerns that by proposing 25% sponsored reservations
in private schools it is likely that government
schools will not be given due importance.
R Govinda: Mr.
Govinda in response to Shri Yaskhi’s comments suggested that
adequate strategic and financial planning has been
undertaken. The financial allocations when calculated
at the Central level are stipulated as 1.71 Lakh
Crores as compared to 2.02 Lakh Crores when calculated
on a per-state basis. He promised to share this
financial plan with MPs and Centre for Civil Society
as soon as possible. Responding to the concerns
with regards to 25% reservations, Mr. Govinda said
he ideally would have liked to institute a common
schooling system which was now impossible in view
of the disparity based 2 tier schooling system
in operation for the last 60 years. He also said
that the reimbursements by the government will
in fact could force private schools to cross-subsidize
the fee charged to other students. Moreover, the
emphasis of the Act and Rules has been on an inclusive
partnership rather than a wish to move away from
government provision of education.
Suresh Angadi:
Shri Angadi emphasized the role of teachers in the
proper implementation of the RTE Act. He also illustrated
the need for education which taught decent morals
and values and was geared towards acquiring knowledge
rather than to just cater to the job market. Moreover,
he also believed that awareness of the RTE Act
and Rules at the local level was a pre-requisite
for success.
Sharad Joshi:
Shri Joshi raised concerns over how any government
inaction was now being substituted by converting
all government obligations to ‘Rights’, be it Right
to Education, Food or Employment. He highlighted
that teachers were likely to benefit most from
this Act. He posed a question on whether ‘mollycoddling’ students
with greater inputs was the best way to achieve
greater outcomes. He also asked that, since education,
knowledge and ability are different, how can education
be directed to increase knowledge as well as ability.
E.M.S. Natchiappan: Shri
Natchippan suggested a need for a proper mapping
exercise to understand the success and failures of
the government, private and the Kendriya Vidyalaya
and Navodaya system before proposing any new systems.
Depending on this exercise, which ever system works
best, should then be expanded. He also indicated
the need for creating a system that allows students
to choose the kind of school and education they
would like. He also highlighted the need for proper
regulations.
Finally, he suggested an action
plan to expand this dialogue to include further meetings
with the Human Resource Development Standing Committee
and organize state level workshops with MLAs in
every state in their vernacular language to increase
their knowledge of RTE Act and rules and help them
design an implementation strategy.
Sharad Joshi:
Shri Joshi in continuation
to Mr. Natchippan’s
plan suggested the involvement of Zila Parishads in
this process.
Madhu
Goud Yaskhi: On
a slightly removed note, Shri Yaskhi was interested
in knowing more about the National Literacy Mission
Authority which has recently launched a new program
called ‘Sakshar Bharat’.
Parth Shah: Dr. Shah called attention
to the agenda highlighted by E. M. S. Natchiappan
and hoped that each of the Members of Parliament
present would volunteer their support to make future
discussions and action possible.
Closing Remarks: Manali
Shah
Manali Shah thanked the participating Members of
Parliament and R Govinda for taking out time and
effort to attend this policy meet. She suggested
that such policy meets were aimed towards providing
a forum to initiate dialogue between politicians,
experts and civil society members to arrive at informed
and innovative ideas and solutions. She further expressed
hope that this policy meet will be followed with
concrete steps such as state based consultations.
She finally asked for feedback and recommendations
on what the MPs felt were issues that needed to be
taken up in similar forums. |
