| |
3. Time frame: The state-level legislation should specify the period within which
universal education of reasonable quality is sought to be achieved, preferably
within three years. The model bill does not provide any time frame for adoption
and implementation of the provisions.
4. Schedule of norms and standards: To ensure a minimum quality of education, it
is important to have a schedule of norms for all schools to follow. The model bill
does not have such a schedule of norms, and there is no specification of the
minimum quality of education that schools should provide. There is only a
reference to ?equitable quality? without defining the parameters of quality. While
ensuring quality is a complex matter, certain norms regarding infrastructure,
number of teachers per school and per student, teaching methods and other
facilities, etc. must be adhered to as necessary conditions.
5. Specification for teachers: Since teachers are critical in ensuring the quality of
education, laying down well-defined but flexible norms for the minimum
qualifications of teachers is particularly important. The model bill has no
specification of a teacher, or the qualifications and in-service training needed for
the position. A teacher is only defined as a person who teaches in the classroom.
However, here too it is necessary to specify norms for teacher qualification and
training.
6. Justiciability: Any right, including the Right to Education, is only meaningful if
it is justiciable. However, in the model bill sent to state governments, the onus is
placed on parents/ guardians of the child. The responsibility of the Government, at
different levels, must be recognized and made justiciable. The example of the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) could be used in this
context.
7. Redressal mechanism: To ensure justiciability, a redressal mechanism should be
outlined and an appropriate procedure must be set in place for students or parents
in case the right is not upheld.
8. Universal schooling: School education must be provided to all, which necessarily
also requires that children of the disadvantaged, landless and minority
communities must also be integrated, along with children with disabilities or
special needs. This requires there should be no distinction made in terms of the
type of schooling provided within the government system, for children from
different social, economic and cultural backgrounds. The model bill has the
potential of creating a parallel and discriminatory system of schooling which can
result in stratification of the education system for children from disadvantaged
communities and backgrounds, because it requires only provision of non-formal
education in such cases, rather than mandating the provision of regular schooling.
Obviously, in all cases, the school system should be flexible enough to cater to
particular needs of students.
|
