People's Democracy

MODEL RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL, 2006

An Outrageous ‘Act’ of UPA Govt - II

Vijender Sharma

THE Section 9 of the RTE Act 2005 had provided for central government’s responsibility to “financial assistance to state governments in accordance with such formula regarding sharing of costs of implementation of this Act, as the central government may determine from time to time in consultation with state governments.” It had also provided for, apart from other things, “technical resource support to the state governments”, “monitoring progress of implementation” and “appropriate steps in case of default”. All these provisions have been dropped altogether in the Model Bill 2006. By this change the central government has washed its hands off from its Constitutional responsibility of providing free and compulsory elementary education to the children of relevant age group. 

Every appropriate government was mandated by the Section 11 of the RTE Bill 2005 to assess the State’s requirement of professionally trained teachers “within six months” and increase the “capacity of existing training institutions” to match the requirement “within such period not exceeding five years” from the commencement of this Act. This timeframe has been dropped in the Section 10 of the Model Bill 2006 making no one accountable for the non-availability of teachers, if any. In most of the states, several thousands of teaching positions in schools have not been filled up and continue to remain vacant even now.

RESPONSIBILITY OF SCHOOLS

The Section on the responsibility of schools to provide free and compulsory education has been drastically amended. The RTE Bill 2005 was being criticised because State schools of “specified categories” such as Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, and Sainik Schools and such other schools that have “distinct character” were to provide free and compulsory education not to all children but to only 25 per cent children admitted to Class I. Now these State schools have been completely taken out of the purview of the Model Bill 2006. By the definition of “specified category” in Section 2(j), it is clear that more and more State schools with “distinct character” can be added to the “specified category” in order to deny free and compulsory education to children. It is unthinkable that the State schools can be exempted from providing free and compulsory education to any child. 

Free and compulsory elementary education will be provided to all admitted children only by the State schools and fully aided schools except schools of specified categories as per Section 13 of the Model Bill. Another provision of the previous Bill that aided schools, other than fully-aided schools, and unaided schools were to provide free and compulsory elementary education to children belonging to weaker sections to at least 25 per cent of the admitted children has been dropped in the Model Bill 2006 under the pressure of the managements of the private schools. This provision was to apply to pre-primary schools as well. Since the private school managements make lot of money at the time of admissions to their pre-primary sections, therefore the proviso related to 25 per cent admission to the children of weaker sections has also been dropped in the Model Bill 2006. Whom is the central government befooling? Itself! It is most shameful that the UPA government has succumbed to the pressure of private school managements and is openly promoting commercialisation of education.

OTHER PROVISIONS

The Section 17 of the Model Bill 2006 drastically changes the norms and standards for a school. Section 20 provides for School Management Committee with parents constituting three-fourths membership, which is a good provision. There is no provision for the School Management Committee for unaided schools. As per Section 21, teachers shall be assigned to a school and thereafter they will not be transferred except those in schools of specified categories.

All vacancies of teaching positions should be filled up. While according to Section 22 of the Model Bill 2006 teacher vacancies in State schools and fully aided schools cannot exceed 10 per cent of the total strength, but aided and private schools, by implication can have vacancies more than 10 per cent. In any case, this provision gives free hand to the government and the school managements to perpetuate shortage of teachers. For equitable and quality education, it is necessary to have some surplus teachers who could take care of teaching in the absence of some teachers who may have gone on leave for various reasons.

Those teachers who are not qualified to teach but are employed to teach were to acquire requisite qualification within five years with the employer bearing all expenses as per the previous draft Bill. This time span has been dropped in Section 23 of the Model Bill 2006. Duties and accountability of teachers of State schools and fully-aided schools have been well defined but aided and unaided schools have been kept out of the relevant Sections 24 and 25. However, it is unfair and undemocratic to exclude all teachers, except the head teacher, from the meeting of the School Management Committee convened to discuss the conduct of a teacher [Section 25(2)].

INSTRUCTION IN MOTHER TONGUE GIVEN UP

In Section 29 of the RTE Bill 2005, there was at least mention that the schools shall “use the child’s mother tongue as the medium of instruction as far as possible, at least during the first five years of the elementary stage.” This Section has been completely deleted in the Model Bill 2006. However, it is strange and atrocious that in the entire Model Bill 2006, the question of imparting education in child’s mother tongue does not figure at all. 

The entire chapter on ‘National Commission for Elementary Education’ that was to be constituted by the central government to continuously monitor the implementation of the right to education legislation and advise the government on related matters has been deleted in the Model Bill 2006. It shows that the UPA government has given up its commitment to free and compulsory education.

The Section 48 of the RTE Bill 2005 provided that “no person shall prevent a child from participating in elementary education” and “no person shall employ a child in a manner that renders her a working child.” Further, the Section 51(j) of the RTE Bill 2005 provided that if any person contravenes this provision, he shall be “punishable with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, and in case of continuing contravention, with an additional fine not exceeding rupees five hundred for each day during which such contravention continues.” Both these Sections have been dropped in the Model Bill 2006. The child labour is rampant and about ten crores of children in the age group of 6 to 14 years are employed as contract labour in one or the other kind of work. Without fully banning the child labour, how can one bring a child to the school? If the central government is serious, it must take the responsibility to ban child labour altogether and take necessary steps in this direction.

PARENTS TO BE PUNISHED

Instead of creating conditions so that a parent is able to send his child to the school, Section 30 of the Model Bill 2006 provides in case of default that the school management committee may “direct such parent/guardian to perform compulsory community service by way of child care in the school.” This provision is atrocious. It is totally misconceived that parents do not wish to send their children to school. The Model Bill 2006 grants complete immunity to the State from any responsibility, penalty or punishment in any case of default. The irony of the provision is that while the parent/guardian is going to be punished to “perform compulsory community service” in case of default, the central government which has abdicated its responsibility through the Model Bill 2006 to bring the child to the school is going scot-free. Article 21-A mandates the “State” (and not the “parent”) to provide “ free” and “compulsory” education to the children. Therefore, this provision must be deleted.

PRO-PRIVATE MANAGEMENT PROVISION

It may appear as a good provision that Section 34 of the Model Bill 2006 provides that a “school management, charging capitation fee, shall be liable to fine which may extend to ten times the capitation fee charged.” Section 14 prohibits “any payment in the nature of capitation fee.” However, the definition of “capitation fee” as given in Section 2(e) is “any fee, donation or contribution other than a fee or any payment that an aided/unaided school publicly notifies at the time of announcement for admission as being payable by all children in the event of admission to the school.” It means that if a private school management publicly notifies at the time of announcement for admission, howsoever arbitrary and unjustified fee, it is legalised and hence not prohibited. The government is thus promoting, instead of checking, commercialisation of education by these private schools. 

If a school conducts any screening procedure for admission of children, Section 34 further provides that its management shall be liable to fine which may extend to Rs 25,000 for the first contravention, and Rs 50,000 for subsequent contraventions. If a person runs a school which is not recognised he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs 1,00,000 and in case of continuing contravention, to a fine of Rs 10,000 for each day during which such contravention continues. However, this Section does not provide any penalty against the State in the event of State’s failure to discharge its constitutional and statutory obligations.

The Model Right to Education Bill, 2006 does not provide at all any right to free and compulsory education to a child in the age group of 6 to 14 years as mandated by the 86th amendment of the Constitution. This Bill has made a mockery of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. This Bill seeks to transfer the entire burden of expenditure on the state governments. It has created more loopholes than it solved the problems in the previous drafts of the RTE Bills. It promotes commercialisation of education and protects private school managements. It has allowed people to continue to employ with impunity children in the relevant age group as contract workers. This Bill is not a document which can be converted into a statute by which equity and quality in education can be ensured. This is a document for continued discrimination of weaker sections of the society. This is a document for continued exploitation of the innocent parents. This is an outrageous ‘Act’ of the UPA government which violates its own common minimum programme commitment of spending 6 per cent of the GDP on education. It empowers the State to prosecute the innocent citizens for its own criminal negligence. The Model Right to Education Bill, 2006, in its present form, would do more harm than to serve the interests of children for whom it is enacted. Therefore, the state governments should reject this so-called Model Bill 2006 and force the central government to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility. We must prepare to struggle to bring the central government to its senses and not to behave in the way the NDA government behaved on this issue. The UPA government must immediately withdraw this Model Bill 2006 and enact a central legislation to fulfill the Constitutional mandate on the right to free and compulsory elementary education.

(Concluded)