Basic problem for implementation
of RTE: - Parliament legislated a bivalent legislation
Right of children to free and compulsory education Act 2009, A child centric
Act but our system is habituated to see every thing in education in a school
centric way. It is similar to use concave mirror in side mirror of a vehicle
which produces inverted image and causes big accident for parents seeking
admission in nursery. To understand the
nursery admission scheme one had to see this child centric act by taking child
as center but unfortunately wee see everything school centric.
To understand provisions of admission
under RTE Act 2009 one have to understand the provisions of this act starting
from section 9(d) which states about child mapping by local authority which
includes all children below 14 years irrespective of economic or social
background. If we read this provision with rule 10 specially sub clause 4(c)
then it is clear that the act deals with pre primary class also. Section 11 is
next step and some part of section 11 is included in section 12(1)(c) proviso
where 25% seats are allocated to EWS parents and remaining 75% to open category
where parent can’t claim re-reimbursement from government. Legislature was well
aware with the non availability of Pre School in government school and 25% under
EWS can’t feed all children in the age group. There are several economic
constraints hence it was not included in the definition of child as the
extended definition of child could impose extra burden on government to start
pre school education for all children hence a suggestion to government has been
given but it does not means that the act does not deals with admission below 6
in private school under open category admission. We must understand that the
aim of the act is inclusive education and segregation is not permissible then
how the act could include EWS by excluding students admitted under open seats
category.
Section 13 of the act is the penal
provisions which strengthen the RTE Act 2009 which must be read for all
children covered under provisions of section 9(d), Section 11 or any other
section of the act which includes child defines under definition part of the
act. If we read strict definition of the child defined between age 6 and 14
then it will make the entire object of the act redundant. Our legislature can’t
have the view to limit section 13 between 6 to 14 only as it will allow
capitation legal for children whom local authority sends in neighborhood
school. In the city like Delhi where admission is allowed at entry level only
then section 13 which apply at the time of admission only will be a redundant
provision. It will allow corporal punishment permissible for children below 6
years and will be restrictive after 6 years. If a child admitted below 6 years
can be holded in nursery class for several years but a child after 6 will not
be holded by school.
Provision under section 9(d) solves the
issue about address proof hence it has not been dealt under the act but section
14 deals with birth certificate and removes the barrier by allowing affidavit.
Parent has choice of admission in some
other schools of their choice but not at the cost of children for which that
school is neighborhood school. If a school has catered all in neighborhood has
catered then only choice of parent seeking admission in the school can be
considered. The choice of parent is not a right and subject to seats available
after admitting all students in neighborhood. It is possible that more then one
school is in the neighborhood then the choice of parent can be considered under
neighborhood and in the case of more application then seats the draw of lots
can be used as a random method.
