08-14-2008, 02:18 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>No right to education? </b>
Pioneer.com
Anuradha Dutt
The UPA has failed to keep its promise to the people
Nothing exposes the duplicity of the Congress-led ruling coalition more than its stance on education. On the one hand, it has forcibly pushed through the 27 per cent quota for OBCs in Centrally-funded higher education institutes and, on the other,<b> it has failed to convert the Right to Education Bill - drafted in August 2005, promising free compulsory education for children in the 6-14 age group - into a binding law. Instead, it continues to dither over the issue even as its tenure is about to end. The reason commonly cited for such inaction is the lack of funds for the ambitious exercise, estimated to cost Rs 1,51,000 crore</b>. <b>The argument merely serves to highlight the elitist bias of the HRD ministry, in particular, and policy-makers, in general, since the cost-factor has not prevented major initiatives in higher education, such as the setting up of additional IITs and provisions for the entry of OBC students into medical and technical colleges through the newly-created quota.</b>
This is indeed tragic, for had the bill been turned into a law, a window of opportunity would have opened for many poor children who are denied elementary education simply because they are not able to afford education. India's under-18 population is reported to be about 400 million, according to the NGO Child Relief and You. In this category, it is the largest child segment in the world. It is difficult to give a precise figure of illiterate or semi-literate children, but assuming that they together comprise even 60 per cent of the total child population, it is huge. In the absence of basic education, they are doomed to a life of servitude. Thus, rather than focusing its time and energy on pushing through 27 per cent OBC quota - of which one third, incidentally, still lies vacant - and then trying to extend the benefits to the creamy layer, the ruling coalition would have proven its socialist credentials better by enforcing free elementary education for all deprived Indian children. In the absence of universal primary education, how many can hope to go in for higher education?
The proposed legislation is meant to give effect to the 86th amendment to the Constitution. Under this, the new Article 21A (in Part III on the Fundamental Rights) pledges that the State will provide free, compulsory education to children in 6-14 age group. Further, Article 45 in Part IV of the Directive Principles is modified to aver that the State will try and provide "early childhood care and education" for all children up to 6 years. Article 51A(k) was inserted in Part IV A on the Fundamental Duties, to State that "a parent or guardian [has] to provide opportunities for education to his child or... ward between the age of six or fourteen years."
<b>As it appeared through the bill, the UPA Government tried to push the responsibility of framing laws to the States, which have thrown the ball back into the Centre's court.</b> Activists and NGOs are sceptical that the present regime will be able to get parliamentary approval for the bill as time is scarce. Its own sincerity is also in doubt. The bill, in its present form, has also invited much criticism. The major proposals are: one, free and compulsory education for the 6-14 age group; two, within three years the State will ensure that there is a school in every child's neighbourhood; three, private schools will admit 25 per cent children from among the poor and educate them free of cost; four, parents/guardians must ensure that children enter school as soon as they are six-year-old; and five, Government schools will be managed by school management committees, consisting mostly of parents.
Most of these recommendations have drawn flak. The 6-14 age group is seen to be too restricted, with the under 6 and over 14 children being totally ignored. The internationally accepted age limit for children is 18, not 14. As far as private schools are concerned, hardliners insist that 50 per cent of the seats be set aside for poor students. The opposing viewpoint is that private schools are entitled to impart quality education for a price. The alternative is to upgrade Government school education to that of private schools.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Anuradha Dutt
The UPA has failed to keep its promise to the people
Nothing exposes the duplicity of the Congress-led ruling coalition more than its stance on education. On the one hand, it has forcibly pushed through the 27 per cent quota for OBCs in Centrally-funded higher education institutes and, on the other,<b> it has failed to convert the Right to Education Bill - drafted in August 2005, promising free compulsory education for children in the 6-14 age group - into a binding law. Instead, it continues to dither over the issue even as its tenure is about to end. The reason commonly cited for such inaction is the lack of funds for the ambitious exercise, estimated to cost Rs 1,51,000 crore</b>. <b>The argument merely serves to highlight the elitist bias of the HRD ministry, in particular, and policy-makers, in general, since the cost-factor has not prevented major initiatives in higher education, such as the setting up of additional IITs and provisions for the entry of OBC students into medical and technical colleges through the newly-created quota.</b>
This is indeed tragic, for had the bill been turned into a law, a window of opportunity would have opened for many poor children who are denied elementary education simply because they are not able to afford education. India's under-18 population is reported to be about 400 million, according to the NGO Child Relief and You. In this category, it is the largest child segment in the world. It is difficult to give a precise figure of illiterate or semi-literate children, but assuming that they together comprise even 60 per cent of the total child population, it is huge. In the absence of basic education, they are doomed to a life of servitude. Thus, rather than focusing its time and energy on pushing through 27 per cent OBC quota - of which one third, incidentally, still lies vacant - and then trying to extend the benefits to the creamy layer, the ruling coalition would have proven its socialist credentials better by enforcing free elementary education for all deprived Indian children. In the absence of universal primary education, how many can hope to go in for higher education?
The proposed legislation is meant to give effect to the 86th amendment to the Constitution. Under this, the new Article 21A (in Part III on the Fundamental Rights) pledges that the State will provide free, compulsory education to children in 6-14 age group. Further, Article 45 in Part IV of the Directive Principles is modified to aver that the State will try and provide "early childhood care and education" for all children up to 6 years. Article 51A(k) was inserted in Part IV A on the Fundamental Duties, to State that "a parent or guardian [has] to provide opportunities for education to his child or... ward between the age of six or fourteen years."
<b>As it appeared through the bill, the UPA Government tried to push the responsibility of framing laws to the States, which have thrown the ball back into the Centre's court.</b> Activists and NGOs are sceptical that the present regime will be able to get parliamentary approval for the bill as time is scarce. Its own sincerity is also in doubt. The bill, in its present form, has also invited much criticism. The major proposals are: one, free and compulsory education for the 6-14 age group; two, within three years the State will ensure that there is a school in every child's neighbourhood; three, private schools will admit 25 per cent children from among the poor and educate them free of cost; four, parents/guardians must ensure that children enter school as soon as they are six-year-old; and five, Government schools will be managed by school management committees, consisting mostly of parents.
Most of these recommendations have drawn flak. The 6-14 age group is seen to be too restricted, with the under 6 and over 14 children being totally ignored. The internationally accepted age limit for children is 18, not 14. As far as private schools are concerned, hardliners insist that 50 per cent of the seats be set aside for poor students. The opposing viewpoint is that private schools are entitled to impart quality education for a price. The alternative is to upgrade Government school education to that of private schools.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->