People's Campaign for Common School System (PCCSS)
Report of the Meeting of PCCSS held on June 27, 2010
A meeting of Public Campaign for Common School System (PCCSS) was held on June 27, 2010 at CSD, New Delhi after several rounds of informal discussion among some of the erstwhile members. Since PCCSS has remained dormant for some time, the first purpose of the convened meeting was to revive the platform in the wake of the new Act on education. In addition to the old members, some more persons were invited, generally representing groups working on issues like right to education and/or common school system. The meeting was presided over by Prof Muchkund Dubey, Chairperson of PCCSS.
Dr. Vasanthi Devi and Mr. Niranjan Aradhya were part of consultation, and had extended their support to the initiative, though they expressed their inability to attend this particular meeting. Among the members of PCCSS Mr Kedar Pandey from Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh, Bihar and Mr Ashok Agarwal, Social Jurist had consented to attend the meeting but could not come due to unavoidable reasons. Among the old members apart from Prof Dubey, Prof Vinay K Kantha, Mr Ambarish, Dr. Dinesh Abrol and Dr. Madhu Prasad attended the meeting. New participants, among others, included representatives of NAFRE, Save the Children, Lok Mitra, WANA etc, besides some activists working in the field of education, including Dr. Dayaram.
Prior to the meeting a note prepared by Prof. Vinay Kantha was circulated among members, as a basis for building a consensus to revive and reorganize PCCSS.
Among the various issues discussed in the meeting, the following were particularly important:
- What may be the general approach of the revised PCCSS?
- Even if the Act was a great disappointment, should we not creatively engage with it, rather than rejecting it altogether?
- Whether to work primarily at the ideological level or take it forward as an effective campaign?
- What could be the non-negotiable demands of PCCSS on the one hand and short term engagements on the other hand?
- What kind of organizational framework can be created to further the objectives of PCCSS?
- What strategies may be appropriate and what would be the mode of functioning of PCCSS?
While a number of suggestions were given by participants, a general agreement was reached on the following lines:
a. (i) Name or banner: It was decided to retain the banner of PCCSS lest the ideological basis, distinct identity and long-term perspective are obscured. There is a positive legacy of PCCSS which needs to be carried forward. It will have the advantage of continuity and possibility of building up on an earlier work, retaining most of the old associates, even as new groups and individuals come on board.
(ii) CSS: Struggle for common schools system will remain the goal and focus of PCCSS, even as it seeks to critically engage with RTE, 2009. With an eye on possible systemic change in future, the objective of quality with equity should be emphasized.
b. Effective implementation: (i) PCCSS should promote creative and critical engagement with the state system with a view to ensure speedy and effective implementation of RTE, and build up a movement in support of CSS and education of equitable quality for one and all. The engagement has to be in a manner that our distinctive approach is not obscured. Rejection or withdrawal will result in inaction and concession by default
(ii) Some members felt that interventions relating to the Act should be with a view to expose (Niranjan through his mail), or to resist the manner of implementation if it takes education towards privatization and commercialization which is quite likely. At the same time, it was pointed out that there are positive features of legislation and efforts should also be directed towards its effective and faithful implementation.
c. (i) Ideological work in any case needs to be pursued as that has remained the distinct and distinguishable feature of PCCSS. Groups active at the field level can also benefit from the debates that may be generated by PCCSS. There was also a general agreement on the need of public monitoring of implementation based on a pro-people rights-based reading of the legislation.
(ii) There are critical areas in which changes can be sought in the Act itself through a vigorous campaign. Simultaneously advocacy is needed to prevent the move to dilute even the existing provisions of the Act, say the provision relating to SMS. For example there is already a lobbying for exempting not only minority schools but aided private schools as well. Thus an effective campaign is desirable both in respect of existing provisions and amendments sought from either side to promote the PCCSS perspective.
d. (i) Non-negotiable demands: Among the non-negotiable demands of PCCSS, the following were enumerated:
i. All children below six years should be brought within the purview of the Act.
ii. All children above fourteen and below eighteen years should also be brought within the purview of the Act.
iii. Reiteration of the long standing demand of at least 6% of GDP being earmarked for expenditure on education.
iv. Resisting the privatization and commercialization of school education.
v. Upgradation and diversification of the norms applicable to schools education (one suggestion was to make them all at par with the central schools)
vi. Enunciation of a clear language policy with facilities of education in the mother tongue at primary level.
vii. Establishment of a separate, statutory and fully empowered Commission to monitor implementation and discharge other functions.
(ii) Short term engagements: There are many possibilities of engagements with the State on the implementation of the Act. These include speedy completion of school mapping, building of schools on this basis, 25% reservation for the admission of the children of disadvantaged groups and weaker sections from the neighbourhood in private schools at entry level, equal treatment after they are admitted, using the provision relating to registration of private schools in order to prevent commercialization, setting up and proper functioning of SMCs, decentralized management etc.
While the PCCSS carries forward the debates and policy-level advocacy, the groups, networks, activists which associate with it can work at the grass roots in the above areas.
e. (i) Membership: While some prominent individuals working in the field of education will be key members, the preference should be on institutions/ organizations, and networks, with a view to broad-base the campaign.
(ii) Core group - composition, role & functions: A flexible approach should be adopted regarding the core committee, and more members can be accommodated. Rather than being a directive body, it should be responsible for information & experience sharing, as a guiding, co-ordinating and facilitating agency. Providing logistic support will be another expectation.
Given the expectation of an expanded role of PCCSS & core group, it should have a substantial representation of activists and representatives of networks. At least one representative should find place from every active state.
(iii) Federal structure rather than unitary: State level core/co-ordinating groups may be formed in the active states, should there be more than one group or organization or network associated with PCCSS there. Further, they can define an agenda of action at their level, though it will be expected that they agree with the general approach of the PCCSS and also support the action programs decided at the national level from time to time.
- Democratic functioning & dialogic culture: PCCSS should function in a democratic mode allowing for debates, & dissent and promoting dialogue. While a minimum consensus should be attempted on key issues, groups particularly in the States may choose their agenda & priorities according to their capacity, experiences and preferences retaining their links with PCCSS.
Regards,
Ambarish Rai
Convener, PCCSS
M. 9013412508
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment