Most towns in south India were in a festive spirit on January 15. Tirunelveli was no different as it was caught in the annual Pongal celebrations. However, in a matriculation school in Maharajanagar things were abuzz for a different reason. Principal Jayendran had procured 300-odd solar eclipse filter spectacles so that his students could learn more about this phenomenon. With the passing of the ordinance to provide for a uniform system of school education in the state, popularly known as Samacheer Kalvi, Jayendran was not sure if he would be able to repeat the feat at the next annular eclipse as he might land in prison for not conforming to the common syllabus specified in the ordinance. It was then that people like him approached the Madras High Court challenging the provisions of the ordinance.
Tamil Nadu is unique compared to other states as it has three boards of education apart from the state board. While the oriental board and Anglo-Indian board have a limited presence, the matriculation schools account for more than 38 per cent of the student intake according to the state education department and have been preferred by parents of all sections for the quality of education it imparts.
The National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), in its annual report, published a nation-wide survey on schools’ performance. The results for Tamil Nadu show the clear distinction between private unaided schools and government schools. The former have 15 per cent more students pass with 60 per cent or more marks, a student-teacher ratio less by six students, three times the average number of teachers per school, and while government schools had negative growth in teacher hiring, private unaided schools increased teaching staff by seven per cent in a three-year period ending 2008-’09.
These schools thus felt a uniform board, having a prescribed textbook and a common syllabus was infringing on the autonomy that had led them to thrive. They felt strictly regulating these aspects would kill initiative among teachers and lead to a mass tuition culture with a proliferation of guidebooks and common notes, putting the state’s education system in jeopardy.
Any matter perceived to infringe on the values enshrined in the Constitution is bound to be legally challenged. The high court bench had to tread a fine line as it encompassed two constitutional matters, the fundamental rights of students and parents as ordinary citizens and the role of the state with respect to education as a core responsibility. Any judgment in such complex matters would set the precedent for future legal recourse and with the introduction of the right to education Act, the implications of this judgment meant that the bench had its task cut out. Its judgment in this matter is a landmark as it maintained a balance between the responsibilities and rights of various stakeholders. A summary has been listed below:
n The judgment upheld the state’s right to bring in a school system common to all in the interest of social justice and quality education.
n The judgment gave autonomy to schools by directing them to follow norms fixed by the common board as far it was practical rather than blanket surrender to the board, as was expected by the ordinance earlier. The judgment also expected that the board lay down assessment patterns as explained in the National Curriculum framework aligning it with the right to education Act rather than allowing the board to come up with a different set of yardsticks.
n The judgment allowed the state to set down the norms for the syllabus only in five subjects, English and Tamil languages, mathematics, science and social sciences, and ruled that the state could not do this for co-curricular subjects such as computer education, arts and crafts, music drawing, etc.
n The judgment directed schools to adhere to the syllabus defined by the common board for curricular subjects but struck down the government’s plan of a single common textbook. It asked the government to provide a choice of multiple textbooks in accordance with the National Curriculum framework. It further directed the state to consider approving textbooks used in matriculation, oriental and Anglo-Indian schools so that schools have a variety of textbooks to choose from.
n The judgment struck down the state’s plan of punitive action, both monetary and convictions, on teachers and school managements. It felt that such actions put too much pressure on them to prove they had not violated the norms. It would also be a grave assault on the freedom of schools and teachers to impart education in the manner they think that is right and suitable for the child.
n The judgment struck down the powers the state gave itself through the ordinance by making the common board take directives from the state on matters of policy. The judgment clearly stated that it could not allow schools, teachers and children to be buffeted by political whims. Any change in policy could only be in consultation with the board, schoolteachers and parents in a participative manner.
People like Jayendran must be heaving a sigh of relief as the activities he organises for students can no longer be seen as an attempt to subvert the Uniform System of School Education Ordinance. The judgment seems to have taken cognisance of the fact that imparting education involves multiple stakeholders and all parties need to be involved in the decision-making and policy-making aspects. It keeps in mind the role of parents in choosing what is best for their child. As Thiruvalluvar states in couplet 67 of the Arathupal in the Thirukkural: The father’s duty towards his son is to make him worthy of precedence in the assembly of the wise.
(The writer is managing director of Yudofud Public Strategies)