On Children's Day 1999 in Indore started, with a
street-exhibition, a protest against the district
administration's twin scheme for education (later
replicated and extrapolated to policy in the state),
viz, rationalization through closures and mergers of
government schools on prime sites and opening of new
schools in slums and revenue-raising through
commercial use of part of government school premises.
Text of booklet at:
here.http://plan.architexturez.org/site/FILES/schools/indore99
on 11-nov-1999 I had landed up in indore with booklet
ready-to-print and exhibition sketched out for my
first lessons in school education.
on 11-nov-2005 ToI reported Mr Arjun Singh has
approved with no changes the Right To Education Bill,
2005, that was posted on MoHRD website in October and
is to be introduced in Parliament in the Winter
Session.
On Children's Day 2005 I have petitioned Rajya Sabha
to that:
1. Right to Education Bill, 2005, not be proceeded
with.
2. approach to legislation contemplated in Article 21A
be clarified (in terms, especially, of whether a
central Bill is at all called for) so as to be
expedited.
3. parameters of overall architecture of legislation
to give effect to Article 21A be clarified (in terms,
especially, of whether or not it is to be aimed at
common school system and, if it is to be so aimed,
instrumentalities thereof that it must articulate)
4. MoHRD/CABE be facilitated to expedite legislation
for Article 21 (with clarifications prayed for and by
removal of difficulties and anomalies noticed in
previous formulations).
This is wrt happier Children's Days in 2000-2003 with
baba-log in Ranguri Pahari, source of my petition
regarding the previous Bill, at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/f/050303
That was referred to MoHRD, which informed that the
present Bill drafted by a CABE Committee included
several instrumentalities of the common school system,
etc. However, it only extrapolates the 25% free seats
instrumentality of the Neighbourhood School Plan
instrumentality of CSS as articulated in Delhi Master
Plan while destroying its NHP context altogether.
Given the Delhi experience, this amounts to
legislating futility. I have contended in my petition
that:
1. all my objections to previous Bill (viz, preference
for a scheme inferior to one provided by central law,
creating circumstances conducive to dualty promoting
options like learning-centres, and Delhi empowering
the state government in matters falling in purview of
central government) apply even more to the content of
the present Bill
2. matters relating to the Delhi experiment being
extrapolated are pending in court, with MoHRD / CABE
members being party / connected to them
3. the Bill is inconsistent with CMP as it reduces the
National Commission (for allocating resources for
universalising equal basic education) to an instrument
for implementing a law that forecloses approaches to
equitable allocation and optimal absorption of
resources.
4. events since 2004 leading to the Bill reflect an
unmistakeable bias in favour of a particular view in
Delhi.
Each of these takes some explaining and the thing is
too long (3700 words). If any one wants to see, please
tell.
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
street-exhibition, a protest against the district
administration's twin scheme for education (later
replicated and extrapolated to policy in the state),
viz, rationalization through closures and mergers of
government schools on prime sites and opening of new
schools in slums and revenue-raising through
commercial use of part of government school premises.
Text of booklet at:
here.http://plan.architexturez.org/site/FILES/schools/indore99
on 11-nov-1999 I had landed up in indore with booklet
ready-to-print and exhibition sketched out for my
first lessons in school education.
on 11-nov-2005 ToI reported Mr Arjun Singh has
approved with no changes the Right To Education Bill,
2005, that was posted on MoHRD website in October and
is to be introduced in Parliament in the Winter
Session.
On Children's Day 2005 I have petitioned Rajya Sabha
to that:
1. Right to Education Bill, 2005, not be proceeded
with.
2. approach to legislation contemplated in Article 21A
be clarified (in terms, especially, of whether a
central Bill is at all called for) so as to be
expedited.
3. parameters of overall architecture of legislation
to give effect to Article 21A be clarified (in terms,
especially, of whether or not it is to be aimed at
common school system and, if it is to be so aimed,
instrumentalities thereof that it must articulate)
4. MoHRD/CABE be facilitated to expedite legislation
for Article 21 (with clarifications prayed for and by
removal of difficulties and anomalies noticed in
previous formulations).
This is wrt happier Children's Days in 2000-2003 with
baba-log in Ranguri Pahari, source of my petition
regarding the previous Bill, at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/f/050303
That was referred to MoHRD, which informed that the
present Bill drafted by a CABE Committee included
several instrumentalities of the common school system,
etc. However, it only extrapolates the 25% free seats
instrumentality of the Neighbourhood School Plan
instrumentality of CSS as articulated in Delhi Master
Plan while destroying its NHP context altogether.
Given the Delhi experience, this amounts to
legislating futility. I have contended in my petition
that:
1. all my objections to previous Bill (viz, preference
for a scheme inferior to one provided by central law,
creating circumstances conducive to dualty promoting
options like learning-centres, and Delhi empowering
the state government in matters falling in purview of
central government) apply even more to the content of
the present Bill
2. matters relating to the Delhi experiment being
extrapolated are pending in court, with MoHRD / CABE
members being party / connected to them
3. the Bill is inconsistent with CMP as it reduces the
National Commission (for allocating resources for
universalising equal basic education) to an instrument
for implementing a law that forecloses approaches to
equitable allocation and optimal absorption of
resources.
4. events since 2004 leading to the Bill reflect an
unmistakeable bias in favour of a particular view in
Delhi.
Each of these takes some explaining and the thing is
too long (3700 words). If any one wants to see, please
tell.
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs