By Dr Gursharan Singh Kainth : Right to Education has been universally recognized since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights {though referred to by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as early as 1920s} in 1948, and have since been reinforced or enshrine by many legally binding international covenants and conventions as well as various national constitutions and development plans. Although majority of the nations have signed and ratified international conventions (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), far fewer have integrated these rights into their national constitutions or provided legislative and administrative frameworks to ensure that these rights are realized in practice. In certain cases, the right exists along with the assumption that the user should pay for this right, undermining the very concept of a right. In others, the right exists in theory but there is no capacity to implement this right in practice. Inevitably, lack of government support for the right to education hits the
poorest hardest. Even today, the right to education is still denied to millions around the world. As well as being a right in itself, the right to education is also an enabling right. Education creates the voice through which rights can be claimed and protected and without education people lack the capacity to achieve valuable functioning as part of living. If people have access to education they can develop the skills, capacity and confidence to secure other rights. Education gives people the ability to access information dealing the range of rights that they hold, and government’s obligations. It supports people to develop the communication skills to demand these rights, the confidence to speak in a variety of forums, and the ability to negotiate with a wide range of government officials and power holders.
Human rights are regarded as worth of respect and protection. They are considered essential for the eight aspects of the good governance agenda1 in, for example, advocating for participation and inclusiveness as well as transparency and rule of law. Although there is wide acceptance of human rights, a wide gap between theory and practice is noticeable. Landman (2004:914) demonstrates this by showing, in a literature review, the extensive amount of work which has been done in translating internationally recognized human rights into entitlement for people in countries’ national legislation. Even though worries about such negative gaps have been expressed, few analyses of the conditions which enable the realization of rights have been carried out. This is what this paper proposes to do in the case of education by asking the following key research questions: Does the new Right to Education (RTE) legislation matter for the realization of education rights for the children of India?
The right to education is a human right to which we are entitled and can claim. Having a right means that someone else has an obligation. If someone has the right to free education, then the government or school management cannot require that you pay in order to access education except through a broader system of tax collections.
However, how can a rights-based approach help development? Broadly, development and human rights are directed to the same purposes – enabling livelihood in dignity, equity and freedom and, throughout the process, centering policies in the human person. “Development and human rights are interdependent”, Cheria, Petcharamesree and Edwin (2004) express. More yet, “development and human rights become different but inseparable aspects of the same process, as if different strands of the same fabric” (Uvin 2004). Clark, Reilly and Wheeler (2005:76), in their contribution, highlight that with the incorporation of human rights in the debate a re-politicization of the development agenda occurred. Such an inclusion “requires understanding rights not merely as legal entitlements, but as a political tool in social change strategies”. The introduction of rights in the development debate enables the re-emergence of the discussion of power division and argues for equality of all.
Education is undoubtedly a human right which, as Tomasevski (1999:3) and Osttveit (1999:2) point out, has been transformed into a “luxury” instead of a right in many places. Signs of that can be seen through words and images of student journalists who report on the condition of education worldwide for the Education for All consortia and observe that hindrances in education range from lack of schools in Mozambique (Cezinando 1999:22) to issues that affect curricula formulation and not living up to the prestige of a previous era, like in the Russian Federation system (Chupina 1999:6-7). In India the situation is no different as many people were excluded from their right to education for very many years. In this Chapter we will analyze the potential scenario of the education rights on ground after the commission of ‘Right to Education’ legislation.
History of Right to Education in India:
Right to Free and Compulsory Education Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha – the upper house of Indian parliament on 15 December 2008 nearly seventy one years since Mahatma Gandhi gave a call for universal education in 1937; sixty one years since independence; fifty eight years since the Constitution, instead of making education a fundamental right made it part of the Directive Principles; fifteen years since the Supreme Court in 1993 ruled on the right to education; six years after the 86th constitutional amendment was passed by the Parliament in 2002 by inserting Article 21A making education a fundamental right for children in the restricted age group of 6 to 14 years; and four years after the draft bill was prepared by the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) committee. Though the delay on part of the state is deplorable, the introduction is undeniably momentous (Rana, 2009).
The Supreme Court, in 1993 in the Unnikrishnan case, ruled that the right to education would be restricted by the economic capacity of the state only beyond age 14, the government ignored it. When the current draft was being prepared by the CABE in 2005, National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) made cost calculations in different scenarios, using the Kendriya Vidyalaya salary scales and state government scales for teachers and all the provisions of the mandatory schedule. The amounts in each case fell well within the six per cent of the GDP norm promised by the Common Minimum Programme of the present UPA government (Rana, 2009). Yet, despite a much better economic situation than during Gandhiji’s time in 1937, the response of the government was no different! The high level group set up by the Prime Minister to examine the economic and legal implications of the bill recommended that the states bring in their respective legislations for reasons not
disclosed. Essentially it was felt that it was much too expensive for the Centre to fund the scheme as per the NUEPA calculations, and further that the Centre could be burdened with a plethora of court cases; so let the states with financial assistance from the centre assume both these responsibilities. The phrase used was that ‘states were flush with funds’, and in any case they are prone to misuse central funding for freebies like cheap rice and colour TVs for buying votes. Once the states rejected the recommendations and many of the critics, in August 2007, questioned the prime minister on the quantum of funds required (on the basis of reduced projections of child population figures by the Registrar of Census in its 2006 corrections to the Census 2001 figures), and perhaps because of the ‘political’ value of such a legislation on the threshold of parliamentary elections, the central legislation was resurrected.
Finally in last two months RTE got the momentum after Kabil Sibbal coming aboard as the Human Resource Cabinet minister in the new Manmohan Singh Government and it was quickly tabled and passed first in Rajya Sabha and then in Lok Sabha – the lower house of parliament in India in August, 2009. Hence, today Indians have one more fundamental right,that is, Right to Education (Rana, 2009).
RTE has been a part of the directive principles of the State Policy under Article 45 of the Constitution, which is part of Chapter 4 of the Constitution. And rights in Chapter 4 are not enforceable. For the first time in the history of India this right has been made enforceable by putting it in Chapter 3 of the Constitution as Article 21. This entitles children to have the right to education enforced as a fundamental right.
The Right to Education is now justifiable in India with the coming into effect of the Right to Education (RTE) Action on April 1, 2010. If the State does not do all that it must do as per the Act, within the stipulated timeframe, any citizen can take the State to court. The justifiability of the RTE Act will be tested sooner than later after March 2013. It will be interesting to see when, where and on what grounds the first such cases are filed and how the State responds to the cases.
Right of children to Free and Compulsory Education Act provides for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years. The Right of children to Free and Compulsory Education Act has come into force from April 1, 2010. This is a historic day for the people of India as from this day the right to education will be accorded the same legal status as the right to life as provided by Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. Every child in the age group of 6-14 years will be provided 8 years of elementary education in an age appropriate classroom in the vicinity of his/her neighbourhood. Any cost that prevents a child from accessing school will be borne by the State which shall have the responsibility of enrolling the child as well as ensuring attendance and completion of 8 years of schooling. No child shall be denied admission for want of documents; no child shall be turned away if the admission cycle in the school is over and no child shall be asked to take
an admission test. Children with disabilities will also be educated in the mainstream schools. The Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh has emphasized that it is important for the country that if we nurture our children and young people with the right education, India’s future as a strong and prosperous country is secure.
All private schools shall be required to enroll children from weaker sections and disadvantaged communities in their incoming class to the extent of 25 per cent of their enrolment, by simple random selection. No seats in this quota can be left vacant. These children will be treated on par with all the other children in the school and subsidized by the State at the rate of average per learner costs in the government schools (unless the per learner costs in the private school are lower).
All schools will have to prescribe to norms and standards laid out in the Act and no school that does not fulfill these standards within 3 years will be allowed to function. All private schools will have to apply for recognition, failing which they will be penalized to the tune of Rs 1 lakh and if they still continue to function will be liable to pay Rs 10,000 per day as fine. Norms and standards of teacher qualification and training are also being laid down by an Academic Authority. Teachers in all schools will have to subscribe to these norms within 5 years.
Education as a Right:
Human rights are widely recognized and accepted by the international community as ideals to be defended and entitlements to be guaranteed to all people, and by all people. The list of matters which are considered as human rights is broad and keeps growing since human rights are understood as tools for enabling people to live in dignity, equity and freedom.
Tomasevski (2003) narrates the history and the evolution of the theme within the United Nations (UN) and it’s evident that the centrality of human rights in the UN has been translated in a multitude of human rights documents generated through political discussions and negotiations among nation-states. International treaties, covenants and conventions that aim to establish and regulate human rights in the international sphere are numerous and it is patent that the practice of generating international legislation on rights will continue for many years as the challenges which surprise the world with inequality, ignominy and constraints are under continuous transformation. However, she is skeptical of the future of human rights in the UN believing that it is constituted of rhetoric which does not match practices. Her opinion is widely divergent from others such as Weiss (in Mertus 2005) who asserted that the human rights mechanisms within the UN have “evolved dramatically since the
signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in December 1948”,which is the first international settlement to emerge on the theme. This document is a landmark for human rights as from it many others have followed. The UDHR does not have the binding powers of an international treaty, covenant or convention due to its character of declaration. Many have been arguing, however, that the clauses enshrined in the UDHR have become natural rules of jus cogens and, therefore, have acquired binding characteristics for both its signatories and even to the other countries which have not acceded or ratified to the declaration themselves. The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both dated 1966, deserve special attention since it is from their aggregation of issues that the divide of human rights into generations occurred. The collection of the UDHR, the ICCPR and the ICCESCR
is known as the International Bill of Rights. The mentioned division of human rights into three generations was originated politically and strategically done in order to facilitate greater adherence to treaties from nations (Eldridge 2002). From then onwards the classification of human rights became important and a division in the theme was rooted, blurring the characteristics of complementation and indivisibility of human rights.
The first generation of rights relates to civil and political rights, the second focuses on economic, social and cultural rights while the third, on another plateau, addresses community or solidarity rights (Nowak 2001; Uvin 2004 and Cheria, Petchamarese and Edwin 2004). The consequence of this segregation of rights is that civil and political rights gained status of being hierarchically superior to the other generations of rights (Mertus 2005). One explanation for it lies on the belief that civil and political rights only require the state to refrain from actions and play a passive role, which would demand less costs and investment than other categories of rights. The other rights, the defenders of such theories continue to argue, requires states to be active in providing effective benefits to people. However others have argued that such an assumption is mistaken since all generations of rights require both passive and active behavior from nation-states, who are the main duty
holders of the internationally acquired obligations (Eldridge 2002). Recent pronunciations made by the UN, such as the during the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, confront the division of rights by recognizing that all rights are hierarchically equal and cannot be implemented separately as they are interdependent and affect each other throughout their realization.
Right to Education is among the listed human rights whose status affects the realization of all other rights. Tomasevski (2005) passionately telling the difficulties on realizing her job as the UN Special Rapporeteur on the Right to Education, states that “[t]he right to education defies classification either as a civil and political right or an economic, social and cultural one. It forms part of both Covenants and, indeed, all core human rights treaties. I emphasized that the right to education represented an interface between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights”. But, what is the fundament for education as a right? Legally, education is enshrined in all of the major international treaties, starting by the UDHR. UDHR establishes the right to education, in its article 26, in the following terms:
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children (UNHR, Art. 26).
From this sole definition of the right to education, traces of what it really means, its substance, are set forth but other international legislation also deal with it. The most important provisions in this respect the right to education are Article 2 of the UDHR, Articles 13 and 14 of the CESCR, Articles 28 and 29 of the CRC, and Article 13 of the Protocol of San Salvador7′ (Nowak 2001) and what underlies all of these norms is the assurance that people will have education which enables them to “participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the Maintenance of Peace” (CESCR, Art. 13).
Tomasevski (2005) also reminds us that “it is not only human rights law that regulates education, internationally or domestically”. There are many other laws which have an influence on the substance of the right to education and “[Reaching out of human rights law became hugely important (…) [and Reaching out of the law was even more important” because there are other variables which influence the realization of the right to education. Education is a process which engages many “different actors who may derive from different (sometimes competing) claims from their right to education: the one who provides education (the teacher, the owner of an educational institution, the parents), the one who receives education (the child, the pupil) and the one who is legally responsible for the one who receives education (the parents, the legal guardians, society and the state)” (Nowad 2001). For now, we need to ask: what does the right to education really mean?
The core of the right to education relates to its substance, which differs from education itself. Effective and transformative education should be the result of the exercise of the right to education, which is a universal human right. The right is about the entitlement to claim the substance of it; it relates to the possibility of demanding the right to education and making it justiciable. The substance of the right to education is given in broad terms by international legislation but real meaning is given to it as national legislators incorporate it. The process of incorporation is more important than the process of adhering to an international treaty because it is this incorporation that entitles people to demand for their right to education. As Tomasevski (2005) reminds us, “[international treaties are meant to be tools to vindicate human rights. Alas, they are not known beyond small circles around ministries of foreign affairs and international human rights organizations that
can afford to travel to Geneva”. Nevertheless, it is the international clauses that set minimum boundaries to secure rights. The norms for right to education have been interpreted by Tomasevski (1999), which carved into the 4-A’s scheme establishing parameters for the analysis of the implementation of the right to education.
For education to be a meaningful right, it must be available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable (4-A’s). The concept of these 4-A’s was developed by the former UN Special Rapporeteur on the Right to Education, Katarina Tomasevski, and it is one of the best ways to assess and act upon the situation. However, it should be noted from the outset that these 4-As are not definitive. Whilst they are an extremely useful way of explaining the right to education in terms of tangible factors, they are not necessarily the standard used in every international treaty and as such should not be treated as a generic, comprehensive guide to what the right to education means under every law. The 4-A’s are to be respected, protected and fulfilled by the government, as the prime duty-bearer, but there are also duties on other actors in the education process: the child as the privileged subject of the right to education and the bearer of the duty to comply with compulsory-education requirements;
the child’s parents who are the ‘first educators’; and professional educators, namely teachers. By using a participatory process this framework of the 4-A’s can become a tool to enable people to think through what the right to education means to them and compare their current reality to this ideal context.
Availability – that education is free and funded by the government and that there is adequate infrastructure and trained teachers able to support education delivery.
Accessibility – that the system is non-discriminatory and accessible to all, and that positive steps are taken to include the most marginalised.
Acceptability – that the content of education is relevant, non-discriminatory and culturally appropriate, and of quality; that the school itself is safe and teachers are professional.
Adaptability – that education can evolve with the changing needs of society and contribute to challenging inequalities, such as gender discrimination, and that it can be adapted locally to suit it specific contexts.
RTE Act: Mandates and Current Status:
The RTE Act mandates the following timeframe for implementation of its provisions
S No Activity Time Frame
1. Establishment of neighbourhood schools
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.1 Provision of school infrastructure
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.2 All weather school buildings
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.3 One-classroom-one-teacher
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.4 Head Teacher-cum-Office room
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.5 Library
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.6 Toilets, drinking water
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.7 Barrier free access
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
2.8 Playground, fencing, boundary walls
3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
3 Provision of teachers as per prescribed Pupil Teacher Ratio 3 years (by 31st March, 2013)
4 Training of untrained teachers
5 years (by 31st March, 2015)
A clear picture of the current status of implementation of the Right To Education Act as well as the timeframe for implementation of the various provisions of the RTE Act is now available thanks to a question raised in the Rajya Sabha by the MP, Shri H.K. Dua. (Rajya sabha Question No. 568, Answered on November 25th, 2011).These were:
(a) the progress on the implementation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act providing for universal education up to 14 years of age, State-wise;
(b) the States that have not notified the rules for implementation of the law;
(c) the steps Government is going to take in this connection so that these States fall in the line with the rest of the country; and
(d) how long will it take for complete implementation of the Act?
Reply by Dr. Purandeswari Minister of State in the Ministry Of Human Resource Development:
(a) The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 has come into force with effect from April 1, 2010. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Framework of Implementation and norms for interventions have been revised to correspond with the provisions of the RTE Act. This includes interventions, inter alia, for opening new primary and upper primary schools as per the neighbourhood norms notified by State Governments in the RTE Rules, support for residential schools for children in areas which are sparsely populated, or hilly or densely forested with difficult terrain, and for urban deprived homeless and street children in difficult circumstances, special training for admission of out-of-school children in age appropriate classes, additional teachers as per norms specified in the RTE Act, two sets of uniforms for all girls, and children belonging to SC/ST/BPL families, strengthening of academic support through block and cluster resource centres, schools, etc.
Since RTE Act came into force, 50,672 new schools, 4.98 lakhs additional classrooms, 6.31 lakhs teachers, etc have been sanctioned to States and UTs under SSA. The fund sharing pattern between the Central and State Governments has also been revised to a sharing ratio which is more favourable to States Governments.
So far, 27 States have notified the State Rules under the RTE Act, including five Union Territories which have adopted the Central RTE Rules. These States are: Andhra Pradesh; Arunachal Pradesh; Assam; Bihar; Chhattisgarh; Haryana; Himachal Pradesh; Jharkhand; Kerala; Orissa; Madhya Pradesh; Maharashtra; Manipur; Meghalaya; Mizoram; Nagaland; Punjab; Rajasthan; Sikkim; Tripura; Tamil Nadu; Uttar Pradesh; Daman and Diu; Chandigarh; Dadra and Nagar Haveli; Andaman and Nicobar Island, and Lakshadweep. The States of Karnataka, Gujarat, West Bengal, Goa, Delhi, Puducherry, Uttarakhand have not yet notified the RTE Rules, and these States have been reminded to expedite the notification of the State RTE Rules.
There are a whole host of issues that will crop up for the Government to address by March 31st, 2013. What will the State do if it has not been able to set up the necessary schools, and hire the necessary qualified teachers to provide an education to every single child in the country? In particular, in densely populated urban areas where there is very little land available for constructing new schools, how will the State construct new schools with playgrounds and buildings of the size specified in the RTE Act?
What will the State do with all the private, unaided schools, that do not measure up to the standards set out in the RTE Act for buildings and playgrounds by March 2013? Will all such schools be de-recognized and forced to close down? How will the Government protect the interests of the parents who are currently sending their children to such private unaided schools? How will the State respond to those Government schools that are not able to measure up to the standards of the RTE Act by March 2013?
If things don’t work out as envisaged, we will need a Plan B. We need to anticipate potential problems and begin thinking right now about possible ways of addressing them rather than starting to think about it 3 years from now when we may be mired in litigation, or stuck with lack of funding, structural issues in implementation and myriad other problems.
Right to Education Act, 2009 Rules:
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has been mandated to monitor the implementation of this historic Right. To ensure that the RTE Act is implemented successfully in letter and spirit, the NCPCR has taken the initiative to build a consensus among institutions, government departments, civil society and other stakeholders. It has instituted an expert committee comprising officials from various government departments, persons of eminence and experience in the field of education, to focus on the roadmap for proper implementation of the RTE.
The committee, which has held four meetings so far, has chalked out a plan to facilitate better monitoring. This includes establishing a separate division within the NCPCR to focus exclusively on RTE. This division would be coordinated by two Commissioners and assisted by a separate staff in all its activities. This division would establish links with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and also be supported by it.
It would also be necessary to establish modalities of interaction with the MHRD so that they can work in tandem to ensure the successful implementation and monitoring of the RTE Act.
A third strategy suggested was the appointment of state representatives to act as the “eyes and ears” of the NCPCR in different states. These representatives would be members of civil society with experience in the field of education and provide information to the NCPCR on the status of implementation of the Act in their respective states. They will also facilitate follow up of complaints received from their states.
Meetings with officials from other ministries that are affected by the RTE Act such as the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Labour Ministry, Tribal Affairs Ministry and Ministry of Panchayati Raj were convened for greater coordination and convergence. For instance, the RTE Act has special implications for the Child Labour Act and the Ministry of Labour has a role to play. Similarly, schools run by the Tribal Affairs Ministry will also come under the purview of the RTE. Thus, for children to benefit from RTE, it is important that there is smooth coordination and communication between NCPCR and these ministries.
NCPCR has met with representatives of other national commissions like the National Commission for Women, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to discuss linkages for better monitoring of the RTE. For example, how the Commissions could work together to ensure girls or children from marginalized communities were not denied the right to education. It was also suggested that in public hearings convened by NCPCR, a representative from the concerned Commission could also be included on the jury so that the impact could be strengthened further.
A consultation was held with representatives from civil society working in the area of education from various parts of the country to discuss the provisions of the Act as well as its monitoring. Representatives from 20 states attended this meeting. This was the first in a series of such meetings held by NCPCR with civil society to draw terms of reference for the appointment of its state representatives.
However, for better implementation and monitoring of the Act, there needs to be greater awareness in the country so that its provisions are understood and incorporated by all institutions. In order to do so a massive publicity campaign will have to be undertaken, including translation of the Act into different languages, perhaps jointly with MHRD and other agencies. NCPCR has begun this process by preparing materials that can be used in this campaign including a simplified version of the Act, posters, primers and pamphlets describing the basic provisions and rights. It will also design special material for children so that they also understand the Act. NCPCR looks forward to playing an active role in ensuring its successful implementation. NCPCR also invites all civil society groups, students, teachers, administrators, artists, writers, government personnel, legislators, members of the judiciary and all other stakeholders to join hands and work together to build a movement to ensure
that every child of this country is in school and enabled to get at least 8 years of quality education.
Lacunas in Programmes:
The RTE Model Rules under RTE Act, 2009 and finalized in February 2010 provide guidelines to be followed by the states to implement the RTE Act. Some of these rules, however, need to be reassessed in order to maximize the chances for success in their implementation.
There is provision mentioned under RTE such as, “No child shall be held back, expelled, or required to pass a board examination until completion of elementary education”, this very provision is very bad in itself. As without obtaining proper ability and qualification, no child can understand in his next class. It will create similar effect of illiteracy and it may be possible that if he/she is not able to understand to what is going on, may create mental agony.
Second where a child above six years of age has not been admitted in any school and if such child is admitted in class appropriate to his age, it will create similar effect as the first one.
The Model Rules hardly provide any details on the implementation of the 25 per cent reservation in private schools. There are many unanswered questions such as;
1. How are weaker and disadvantaged sections defined and verified?
2. How will the government select these students for entry level class?
3. What will be the mechanism for reimbursement to private schools?
4. How will the government monitor the whole process?
5. Would the admission lottery be conducted by neighborhood or by entire village/town/city?
6. What would happen if some of these students need to change school in higher classes?
The reimbursement to private unaided schools for the 25 per cent quota should be calculated not only on the basis of the recurring expenditure in government schools but should also include the fixed or capital expenditures with due allowance for depreciation of assets and interest costs including other costs related to elementary education at all levels of the State Government.
Right to Education Act: An Unfinished Agenda
Human rights are universal, inalienable and inherent. We are born with them and cannot be given or taken away. These are non-discriminatory and should not be influenced either by sex, ethnicity or nationality etc. They are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace. These are the basic standards without which people cannot live a life of dignity. Although all human rights are theoretically universal and inherent, they cannot be denied through violations in practice. People are often unable to enjoy their human rights because of who they are, and where they live. Discrimination is rife in every society, limiting, e.g., women’s ability to participate in the public forums (or household decision – making), or preventing members of the minority groups from receiving appropriate education. Discrimination is an abuse which prevents people from enjoying
their basic human rights and thus undermining the very concept of a universal right.
Legislation can be a tool for enhancing the realization of the right but it does not ensure instant realization. In specific cases the Indian judiciary played an important role in assuring the realization of the right to education but to follow such a route does not ensure a sustainable educational system in which education is available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. Each case is individual and the costs of using this method for accomplishing rights are high. Having coherent policies in practice, however, is a more stable way of ensuring the realization of the right to education for if all as policies aim at creating ways for the realization of rights and the correction of distortions, when existent, the full accomplishment of rights can be translated into reality. Many of the current policies relating to education in India are not designed to enable available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable education to all and even if some of the policies are comprehensive and all
inclusive, they are not implemented to their full extent. Many policies aim at resource distribution and at promoting equality among different regions and states, for example, but the achievement of the expected effects of these policies is not seen as other variables influence the realization of the right to education.
Regional disparities continue to be a trait of the Indian reality. Policies, however, have to be implemented rather than just resting on rhetoric to change reality and make rights effective in practice. Some of these variables could be believed to be socio-economic conditions, educational tradition, availability of resources and the way in which the duty-holders of educational provision develop their actions and the implementation of policies. Having good policies which aim at a holistic approach to education is very important but it is not enough as they, just as well as legislation, have to be translated into practice. To change the despairing scenario of basic education in any country would require the participation of all sectors involved. The solution will not come only as a result of governmental policies imposed on schools, as some people believe. It will be slow transformation based on small victories. However, just as access was obtained, quality and equity can also be
reached with time. The right to education requires bridge building, translating human rights into the language of economics and statistics”. Such a bridging and coordination , moreover, should not be restricted to the governmental bodies but has to involve all the actors related to education, such as teachers, parents, students, and also those beyond it, like private investors, on the way to achieve consistent and stable policies. There is a “need for academic and professional work, human rights activism, dissemination of knowledge to the constituencies supportive of the right to education, and the creation of new constituencies. No doubt, good management, disclosure of information and legal processes are important, they are not enough” and signals “mobilization, pressure and vigilance from below” as tools for enabling the full realization of rights. Nonetheless, “advancing human rights is a process – a marathon rather than a sprint” and there is a need to keep going in order to
ensure that all the rights that citizens are entitled to in principle are translated into policies and proper implementation, including right to education.
To translate the current RTE bill into practice, national and state governments of India, will reply on SSA (Sarva Siksha Abhiyyan). Since the states are at different levels of development in their educational attainments – the contrast between Kerala and say Bihar comes easily to mind – their needs would also be different. The challenge would be to craft flexible and decentralized norms that suit the needs of each state, in contrast to the way the SSA is being currently implemented with rigid norms. There would be other considerations too. For example, the current SSA is incompatible with the fundamental rights based requirements of the bill; the central government would have to decide whether to reformulate the SSA appropriately or to bring in a completely different funding mechanism to implement the fundamental right.
The standards of the Government, municipal schools are appalling. Apart from the inadequacy of infrastructure, there is shocking incidents of absenteeism and neglect on the part of many teachers in Government schools. The school inspection system has practically broken down. Another disturbing element is that that the teachers in Government schools are forced to engage in variety of Governmental works like dise-dine census, elections to local authorities, state legislatures and Parliament and disaster relief duties and so on. There should be some amendments in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as it is provisioned that “no child shall be held back, expelled, or required to pass a board examination until completion of elementary education” because without having proper ability and knowledge, no child will able to survive in next class. In villages the Panchayat members can play important role in promoting education. The village education committee
should not be an ad hoc project arrangement and should be permanent. There should be a teacher and parent interaction because a frequent parent and teacher interaction will enhance student enrolment and attendance rate. The incentives like books, uniforms etc. available to the students must be made at the beginning of session. Village monitoring committees must be formulated so that they will monitor the enrolment and student absenteeism. The quality of MDM needs to be improved, which will attract children of the weaker sections of the society. More Acts like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act should be started because only those parents who employed think about not to employ their children in any labour work.
Punjab is shying away from increasing the number of working hours for government school teachers, as stipulated in the Right to Education (RTE) Act. The RTE Act puts down the working hours of government schools teachers to a minimum of 45 hours a week. The working hours in the states are 36 hours a week at present. While the Act proposes to increase the working hours for teachers, the number of school hours for students remain the same. Teachers are expected to do their paperwork or prepare for the next day’s classes during the extra hours in school. In compliance with the RTE Act, primary school teachers are expected to be in schools from 8 am to 3 pm in summers and from 9 am to 4 pm in winters. For upper primary teachers, the proposed working hours in summers are 8 am to 3.30 pm, and 9 am to 4.30 pm in winters. Punjab’s Education department prepared a draft of the notification that proposed to increase the working hours of primary school teachers by an hour per day and by
one-and-half hours per day for upper primary school teachers. The proposal was then returned to the top political brass for a final nod, but the issue seems to be hanging fire at the level of the political leadership. But the increase in timings is inevitable as it is part of the implementation of the RTE Act, which was adopted by the state government
The goal of cent per cent female education can be achieved by creating community awareness for girls education at all levels. Improvement in the infrastructure like availability of water, sanitation and toilets in schools should be done on priority basis. Proper training for teachers and staff should be provided. Training for teachers and staff at the residential schools will be coordinated by the District Institutes of Educational Training, Block Resource Centers and the Mahila Samakhya Resource Groups.
Though the state has the primary obligation to provide education for all children but non-governmental organizations and other civil society partners can make a vital contribution to education by mobilizing public demand and expanding participation. Government needs to build effective partnerships with all organizations and institutions that have an impact on children’s education.
**Author ,Dr Gursharan Singh Kainth is Director of Guru Arjan Dev Institute of Development Studies,
14-Preet Avenue, Majitha Road ,PO Naushera, Amritsar 143008