Letter to Govt by Lalit

A Comment and a Suggestion on the Right of Children to Free Education Bill, 2009

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2009 provides children with numerous rights, perhaps more than any child could have dreamt of.

But there are provisions in the Act which, taken together, seem not be in the best interest of education; consequently not in the long term best interests of the country.

A school is defined [Section 2 (n)] as a recognised school, and no school is permitted to function without a certificate of recognition [Section 18 (1)]. Indeed the Act prescribes severe penalties for running an elementary school without recognition [Section 18 (5)]. The upshot of these provisions is to leave educationists with no rights at all; they are deprived of all opportunity to experiment or innovate.

Allow me to elaborate.

Religions consider their scriptures sacred and unalterable. Therefore religious education, e.g. in a madarsa or Vedic pathshala, is fixed for all time – both as to the knowledge to be imparted (Quran, Veda) and as to the method of learning (by rote).

In the realm of secular education, however, there is a constant and never ending growth in knowledge. This knowledge is of two kinds: (i) substantive knowledge that determines what is to be taught and which causes periodic revisions of the syllabus; and (ii) knowledge concerning the nature of children and the processes by which their moral, intellectual and aesthetic qualities are developed. Knowledge of this kind generates new insights regarding the aims of education and the methods of teaching. To validate these new insights, the educationist carries out experiments and innovations in an actual school run by him.

Innovative possibilities are greatest at the starting point of education, i.e. in primary education. That is why primary education has always attracted some of the best minds in every age. This creative realm ought always to be kept open to educationists for experimentation and innovation. But, unfortunately, it is precisely from this realm that the Act has debarred educationists through its prohibition on running elementary schools without recognition.

Consider the implications of excluding educationists. Could Gandhiji, in such circumstances, have tried out his scheme of linking productive work with education, which he called basic education? Or would Tagore have been able to pursue his ideal of schooling in natural surroundings – so that the child experiences life in its right and natural proportions – and of making the fine arts the basis of education? Or Aurobindo his ideas, based on his synthesis of yoga, on the development of the senses and the faculties first rather than forcing the child to master the ‘subjects’ of a given syllabus? And, outside India, could Froebel or Montessori have made their contributions without actually running schools in accordance with their insights?

The great philosopher Kant wrote: “Education is…the greatest and most difficult problem with which man can be confronted, since insight depends on education and education in its turn depends on insight.” If education depends on insight, is it not wiser to let the educationist try out novel ideas based on fresh insights?

The provisions of Section 18 not only ignore the existence of the most vital and creative force in the sphere of education (viz. the educationist), but fix education within the frame of the understanding available to the government in the year 2009 CE. No space has been left for future growth and development. This situation is the equivalent of the government formulating a scientific policy without providing any space for research.

Since the Act may not lend itself to easy or immediate amendment, it is suggested that non-formal education be kept alive in some form. NIOS, which is under the Ministry of HRD and also a Board of Education, has till now been giving accreditation to innovative schools in the realm of elementary education – with minimum interference. To conform to the requirements of the Act, the term ‘accreditation’ could perhaps be replaced by ‘recognition’. NIOS could thus continue to recognise innovative schools.