COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM
 

NPERC Perspective

6.1 The NPERC considered the development of Common School System to be a very vital component of the overall strategy for securing equity and social justice in education. The Common School System was originally advocated by the Education Commission (1964-66), under the chairmanship of Dr. D.S. Kothari (hereafter referred to as Kothari Commission). NPE, 1968 accepted the recommendation of the Kothari Commission for bringing about the Common School System. In the context of the national system of education, NPE, 1986 restated the determination of the Government to take effective measures in the direction of the Common School System. The concept of national system of education would imply, according to NPE 1986, that, upto a given level, all students, irrespective of caste, creed, location, or sex, have access to education of comparable quality. The NPERC noted that the Common School System still remained a concept even though mooted by the Kothari Commission over a quarter of a century ago and expressed the view that the educational disparities are being further accentuated by the failure to implement the Common School System. The NPERC advocated concrete steps to translate the concept into a reality.

Upgradation of Schools

6.2 According to the NPERC, the Common School System cannot become a reality unless the government and local body schools are upgraded through the provision of adequate infrastructural facilities and academic inputs. Without such upgradation educational disparities would persist and the well-to-do would continue to send their children to the expensive private schools. The NPERC, therefore, recommended significant increase in the outlay on elementary education and provision of special allocations for improvement of the school system in backward areas, urban slums, tribal areas, hilly tracts, desert and marshy areas., drought and flood-prone zones, coastal belts and islands.(R.No.102). In our view this recommendation is very appropriate. The prime objective of the Common School System is equalisation of educational opportunities; equalisation cannot be achieved without bridging the yawning gap between the few expensive private schools and the multitude of government and local body schools, at least in regard to primary education,, to begin with. The NPERC advocated a ten-year time-frame to achieve the Common School System. We do appreciate the spirit underlying this recommendation. Given the magnitude of resources required, a ten-year time-frame does not appear realistic. However, there is no alternative to stepping up investment in education with an over-riding priority to basic education within the education sector. Our recommendations in regard  �3p�3
 � to resources are set out in a subsequent chapter.

14

Neighbourhood Schools

6.3 The NPERC also put forth the view that as a step towards achievement of the Common School System the existing government, local body and government-aided schools have to be transformed into genuine neighbourhood schools; over a course of time private schools should also get transformed into such neighbourhood schools by making them freely accessible. The NPERC's conception of neighbourhood schools is at variance with that of the Kothari Commission as well as the normal usage. As is understood in the Western countries and as delineated by Kothari Commission, the term `neighbourhood schools' implies that this school is attended by all the children in the given locality. In contrast to neighbourhood schools, the public schools are residential and draw children from far and near. According to the NPERC's conception, the neighbourhood school is a school which is closely concerned with the concerns of the community around, serves the community and establishes linkages with the community by, inter alia, connecting subjects and curricula of the schools with the situation and demands of the community. Unlike the NPERC, which envisages neighbourhood schools as an intermediate stage in the progress towards the common schools, the Kothari Commission considered the neighbourhood schools to be the ultimate objective. We consider it unrealistic to expect, as does the NPERC, that every school can tailor the subjects and curricula to the specific situations and demands of the community around. Given the resource endowment of most government and local body schools such an expectation is farfetched. Further, flexibility on subjects and curricula would cut at the root of the National Curricular Framework. However, there is merit in the idea that linkages should be forged between the community and the schools. Such linkages are particularly necessary in respect of the expensive private schools which tend to be alienated from the community around. By insisting that such schools accept social responsibility and by making it obligatory for the teachers and students of such schools to serve the community around, it should be possible to root such institutions in their social environment. These schools can be made more egalitarian by requiring that they fill up a proportion of the seats by meritorious students from the disadvantaged groups such as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Enrolment of such students would be facilitated by provision of free scholarships.

6.4 Quoting the Kothari Commission, the NPERC had indicated that one of the features of the Common School System was that access to education will depend on talent. We find that the correct position is that the Kothari Commission did not link talent with access to education in common schools and had instead advocated special schools for talented children.

Mother Tongue as Medium of Instruction

15

instruction for all through the medium of mother tongue at the pre- primary and primary levels, particularly for linguistic minorities; active encouragement of teaching the regional languages at the secondary level; and discontinuance of state aid to the schools imparting education otherwise than through the medium of mother tongue/regional languages. This recommendation, excepting the part relating to state aid is a restatement of Article 350-A of the Constitution and the Three-Language Formula. It also figures in chapters 11 and 12 of the NPERC report "Languages in Education" and "Content and Process of Education." It is universally accepted that adequate provision should be made for instruction in the mother tongue in the pre-primary and primary levels for all children including those of minorities' and for instruction in regional language in the secondary stage. Knowing that medium of instruction is a major hurdle in the achievement of the Common School System, we have given a great deal of thought to the feasibility of presuming that only mother tongue should be the medium of instruction at the pre-primary and primary levels. That is to say, use of English as medium of instruction at the pre-primary and primary levels should be prohibited except for those children whose mother tongue is English. Use of a foreign language for the medium of instruction at the pre-primary and primary levels does not make any sense' and does enormous harm to the creativity of children and to our national identity. However, the majority view is that given the objective conditions time is not ripe for stipulating that only mother tongue shall be the medium of instruction in the preprimary and primary levels.

6.6 To sum up, effective measures need to be taken to implement the provisions of NPE 68 and NPE in regard to Common School System. To this end, disparities between schools should be ended as early as possible by upgrading the quality of ordinary schools and providing amenties for achieving minimum levels of learning. Both the Centre and the State should take determined action in this regard. The privileged schools should accept social accountability by sharing their facilities and resources with other institutions, taking up community activities, and facilitating access to children of the disadvantaged groups.

16