REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL BODIED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARY EDUCATION 1954.

 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE
 GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL BODIES IN
 THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARY
 EDUCATION 1954

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1954

PREFACE

The report of the Committee appointed to consider the relationship of the State Governments and local bodies in the administration of Primary education was considered by the Central Advisory Board of Education at their 19th meeting held at New Delhi on 15th and 16th March, 1952. The Board accepted in broad outline the recommendations of the Committee and desired that these may be forwarded to the State Governments for their information and guidance, so that they may enforce them in the light of their special circumstances and problems.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

At the 18th meeting of the Central Advisory Board of Education held at Trivandrum in January, 1951, the Government of Bihar raised the question of the relationship between the state governments and local bodies in respect of the administration of elementary education, and suggested that a committee of the Central Advisory Board of Education may be appointed by the Chairman, the Hon'ble Minister for Education. to examine the question thoroughly. In the memorandum submitted by the Bihar Government, they stated:

" In paras 7 and 8 of Chapter XII of the Report of the Central Advisory Board of Education on Post-War Educational Development in India (Sargent Committee Report) it has been categorically stated that the state governments :should forthwith resume all educational powers and that in order to retain local interest, school boards for smaller areas may be set up where some people with the requisite Knowledge, enthusiasm, integrity and standing are available ; the members of these boards should be nominated by the State Education Department and their powers should in no case include any control over the appointment, promotion, transfer or dismissal of teachers.

2. " On principle the adoption of this recommendation will be highly desirable for the future development of education in the various states. But in practice even the partial withdrawal of the powers from. the district board has led to considerable opposition from local bodies on the ground that the state government will thus be acting against the salutary principle of decentralising the administration of education. Also the history of the fight of local bodies with the previous government for increased autonomy has created a mentality of severe opposition to any assumption of powers of these bodies by the state governments. Even though conditions from state to state may vary, in view of these historical factors as well as of the undoubted necessity of decentralisation of the administration of elementary education, it would be helpful to the state governments if a Committee of the Central Advisory Board could examine, in detail, the present set-up of local administration of education in the different states, the experiments carried out in some of the states in the assumption of more powers by the state governments, the requirements of different state governments in this regard and recommend a more or less uniform pattern which may, with a few variations, be adopted in all the states of India. Such a well- considered recommendation by a central committee

on which, if possible, the L. S. G. departments of the states may be represented, would very much strengthen the hands of those state governments that are finding it increasingly difficult to introduce the general recommendations of the Central Advisory Board of Education on account of the criticism that those recom- mendations do not put forward a feasible formula suited to the present democratic set-up of the country's administration."

In pursuance of this recommendation, the Hon'ble Minister for Education appointed the following committee for the purpose:

1. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Bombay, Shri B. G. KHER. (Chairman)

2. The Hon'ble Minister for Local-Self Government, Uttar Pradesh, SHRi A. G. KHER.

3. SHRI J. C. MATHUR, Secretary, Education Department, Bihar Government.

4. DR. D. M. SEN, Secretary, Education Department, West Bengal Government.

5. DR. K. C. KHNANNA, Retired Secretary and Director of Public Instruction, Punjab Government.

6. DR. V. S. JHA, Secretary, Education Department, Madhya Pradesh Government.

7. DR. I. R. KHAN, Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh.

8. SHRI D. S. REDDY, Director of Public Instruction, Madras.

9. SHRI CHUNILAL D. BARFIWALA, Director-General, All-India Institute of Local-Self Government, Bombay.

10. SHRI SYED NURULLAH, Joint Director of Public Instruction, Bombay.

11. SHRI K. G. SAIYIDAIN, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Education. (Secretary)

2. The Committee held two sittings, one at Bombay on 23rd, 24th and 25th October, 1951, and the other at New Delhi on 19th and 20th December, 1951, both under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Shri B. G. Kher. Shri K. G. Saiyidain, Joint Secretary to [be Government of India, Ministry of Education, acted as the Secretary to the Committee. He was assisted by Shri K. L. Joshi, Assistant Educational Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Education.

3. At the first meeting all the members except Dr. I. B. Khan were present. Shri J. P. Naik. Secretary, Indian Institute of Education, Bombay, mid Shri C. L. Kapur, Secretary, Education Department, Punjab Government, also attended the meeting by invitation. Both these gentlemen were later co-opted as members of the Committee for the second meeting held at New Delhi. At the second meeting, all the members with the exception of Dr. I. R. Khan and the Hon'ble Shri A. G. Kher were present.

4. At the Bombay meeting, the Committee finalized Chapter II dealing with the historical survey of the role of local bodies in Indian education. The Committee also considered the position in some of the important countries of the world in so far as this problem of relations between the state governments and local bodies in respect of primary education is concerned and the information appears in Appendix 'A' of the report. The Bombay meeting further considered the following issues

1. Should the local bodies be associated with the administration of primary education in some form or the other ?

Should the administration of primary education be fully centralised under the state education departments ?

If the second of these alternatives is agreed to, no further questions will arise. (it, is presumed that no powers will imply no contributions).

If, however, the first of these alternatives is accepted, several questions will arise. These are indicated below.

CHOICE OF LOCAL BODIES

2. What local bodies should be associated with the administration of primary education in urban areas ? In particular,

(a) Should every municipality be authorised to manage primary education ?

(b) Should only selected municipalities be authorised to do so ?

If the latter alternative is preferred, on what principles should the selection be made ?

Do you propose that municipalities should be " graded " on some principles and that varying degrees of authority should be entrusted to different grades ? If so, suggest the principles and the different grades of authority to be delegated.

(N.B.-The word "municipality" used here shall include all urban bodies of local government such as Town Committees, Notified Area Com- mittees, Cantonment Boards, etc.).

3. In rural areas, which local bodies should be associated with the administration of primary education and to what extent ?

In particular,

(1) Do you think that the district is too large a unit for local administration of primary education ?

If you do, would you advocate its abolition as a unit for educational administration or would you coordinate its working with other smaller units like talukas or villages ? If so, how ?

(2) Would you prefer the taluka as the principal unit of the administration of primary education ? If so, how would you constitute a taluka body and define its powers ?

(3) Would you prefer to adopt the village as the principal unit on the French model with or without a district or taluka educational council for coordinating purposes ?

(4) All the questions raised above (Question No. 2) regarding municipalities, should also be considered here with reference to village panchayats, mutatis mutandis.

DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT SYSTEMS

4. Do you prefer the dependent system or the independent system for education of educational' bodies association with the local bodies entrusted with powers in respect of primary education ?

(To be answered for each type of local bodies).

5. If you prefer the dependent system, what should be the relation between the local body and its educational body ? Do you think it necessary to prescribe some essential principles regarding the composition, powers etc. of educational bodies in the dependent system ? If so, would you provide for these matters in the Acts constituting the local bodies or in separate enactments ?

What, in your opinion, should these essential principles be Would you prefer the English model. where each local body prepares, with the approval of the Government, a scheme for the working of its educational body ? If not, how would you provide for local freedom and experimentation in this matter ?

6. In the independent system, what should be the composition of each type of educational body you propose ?

Should the educational bodies under the independent system be treated as local bodies with all that it signifies ?

5 POWERS

7. In respect of each type of local body you propose to associate with the administration of primary education, what authority would you vest in the local body concerned, in respect of the following

(1) Inspection

(2) Teaching staff appointment, promotion, punishment, leave etc.

(3) Non-teaching staff appointment, promotion, punishment, leave etc.

(4) Curricula

(5) Textbooks

(6) School hours and vacations

(7) Construction and maintenance of school buildings

(8) Provision of school equipment and contingencies

(9) Opening and closing of schools

(10) Any other matter pertaining to primary education,

(See also question No. 9).

8. What should be the relations between the state education department and local bodies (or independent educational bodies) in the different matters pertaining to the administration of primary education (Question No. 7) ?

FINANCE

9. Should powers follow purse ? Should they be decided on grounds of administrative efficiency, democracy and convenience ?

10. Should local bodies be required to spend a prescribed minimum percentage of their revenue on education ? If so, what should it be ?

(To be separately answered for each type of local bodies).

(See also question No. 15).

11. For which local bodies should a P. E. Fund be established ? What items should go into this fund ?

12. On what principles should state grants be given to primary education ?

If grants are to be based on approved expenditure, how would you define " approved " ?

13. What should be the procedure for sanctioning a budget and reappropriations therein ?

14. What arrangement for audit would you propose ?

15. Should the levy of an education cess be generalised in all states and in urban as well as in rural areas ? If so, on what basis ?

(See also question No. 10)

16. Should state grants be discretionary or statutory

COMPULSORY EDUCATION

17. Should the responsibility for compulsory education be on the state or on local bodies ?

Would you divide the responsibility between them ? If so, how ?

18. Should the state grants for compulsory education be on a different basis from that of grants for voluntary education ?

19. Does the enforcement of compulsory primary education suffer in any way on account of the present administrative arrangements ? If so, how would you remedy the situation ?

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

20. What control should local bodies have over private primary schools in their respective areas ? How would their authority be coordinated with that of the Education Department ?

5. On the basis of the discussion on the questions stated above, the Committee formulated certain principles. In this connection the material from the state governments in response to a questionnaire issued to them was placed before the Committee. This enabled the Committee to 'understand the existing relations between the state government, and local bodies in respect of primary education. The Bombay meeting requested Mr. J. P. Naik to prepare a draft on the basis of this material for-the third Chapter which was considered by the Committee in their Delhi meeting and approved with necessary modifications. A summary of the recommendations made by the Committee after a critical analysis of the position in different states appears separately in the report.

6. The appendices contain valuable information collected. for the first time in connection with the problem before the Committee and it is hoped that this information will be useful to all readers of this report.

7. Shri Chunilal D. Barflwala, a member of the Committee, has submitted a note of dissent which is printed as annexure.

CHAPTER II.

HISTORICAL

1. How Local Bodies in India Came to be Associated With the Administration of Primary Education :-The association of Indian local bodies with the administration of education in general and that of primary education in particular, was the result of several factors. In the earlier half of the nineteenth century, when the first attempts to educate the people were being made by the East India Company, its officials tried to establish educational institutions of the modern type and maintain them partly from voluntary contributions collected from the people and partly from grants-in-aid sanctioned. by the government. This modus operandi succeeded fairly well in respect of English schools because the people were extremely eager to learn English and also willing to make financial sacrifices to obtain its knowledge. In respect of primary education, however, their satisfaction with the indigenous schools made them reluctant to support the new primary schools that the officials were anxious to establish and consequently official attempts to collect public contributions for primary schools usually came to grief. Moreover, it was argued that such attempts created a prejudice against education, made the government itself unpopular, and compromised the dignity of officers by placing them in the light of importunate and often unsuccessful applicants for pecuniary contributions. It was to avoid these difficulties experienced in obtaining voluntary local support that the Despatch of 1859 directed the levy of a local rate, to defray the cost of maintaining primary schools. Obviously, the establishment of local bodies and their association with the administration of primary schools follow as a corollary from this order although the Despatch makes no specific reference to them. *1

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL BODIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARY EDUCATION 1954