Read the following paragraphs of an op-ed piece published in The Hindu dated October 5. We thankfully acknowledge the contribution of Sri Krishnadas Rajgopal and The Hindu for this story.
Why is a spectre of empty classrooms looming?
What has the Supreme Court ruled on the Teachers’ Eligibility Test? How many teachers are likely to be affected? Why has Tamil Nadu sought a review? What does Article 21A lay down? What is the situation in other States? Are minority institutions part of the verdict?
Krishnadas Rajgopal
The story so far:
The State of Tamil Nadu has sought a review of a Supreme Court judgment requiring in-service teachers from Classes 1-8 in non-minority schools across the country to clear the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) in two years or be “compulsorily retired”. Other States have equally voiced concern about the September 1 judgment and its harsh lesson to lakhs of teachers validly employed in government, aided, unaided and private schools mentioned under Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. They are likely to follow Tamil Nadu to the top court.
What is the situation in Tamil Nadu?
Tamil Nadu alone employs 4,49,850 teachers in government and aided schools, of whom 3,90,458 are not TET-qualified. The States have argued that if the judgment is implemented, the entire school system faces the imminent prospect of collapse, with mass disqualification of teachers and denial of classroom instruction to millions of children. Tamil Nadu argues that the judgment provokes a direct conflict with Article 21A (fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children aged six to 14) of the Constitution. The State has sought a balance between ensuring quality of education and safeguarding the right to education.
What did the judgment mandate?
The two-judge Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan is not unaware of the ground realities. Justice Datta, who authored the September 1 judgment, acknowledged the contributions of non-TET qualified teachers appointed prior to the RTE Act. The court agreed that dislodging elementary school teachers was a “bit harsh” as they have taught students for decades without any serious complaints. Hence, the court, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, has exempted teachers with less than five years left to retire from taking the TET. However, they would have to clear the TET if they seek promotion. But teachers who have more than five years of service must mandatorily qualify for the TET within two years from the date of the judgment. If they fail, they would have to quit service or be retired with terminal benefits.
Future appointments or promotions for teachers in non-minority schools would necessarily require TET qualification.
Further, the two-judge Bench judgment referred to a larger Bench the question whether minority educational institutions ought to be also included under the purview of the RTE Act. The court noted that the minority status was being misused by school managements to circumvent the mandate of the RTE Act to have TET-qualified teachers conduct elementary education. The judgment was based on a batch of appeals questioning school education departments’ insistence on faculty clearing the TET in minority institutions.
The two-judge Bench criticised a 2014 Constitution Bench judgment in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust case, which took minority institutions entirely outside the ambit of the RTE Act. The September 1 judgment made a strong pitch to bring schools run by minorities — whether religious or linguistic — into the RTE fold as the 2014 judgment had “unknowingly jeopardised the very foundation of universal elementary education”. It said the exemption of minority institutions from the RTE Act has led to “fragmentation of the common schooling vision and weakening of the idea of inclusivity and universality envisioned by Article 21A”. (Incomplete)
——————————————————————————————————-.———————
Read the following lines before answering the questions ….
We all have got our initial education in rural schools. Barring a small minority of children from rich families living in urban areas, we have been deprived of quality education that has left us with low skills in subjects like English, Mathematics, Geography and History. When we entered colleges and universities, and later started our job search, we felt impaired by our weak foundation in these subjects. One of the main reasons is the incompetence of our early school teachers to open our minds to the fierce competition that awaited us when we entered the real life scenario. The teacher took it easy because of two factors—1. They had never bothered to upskill themselves in the subjects they taught, and 2. The parents seldom held them accountable for the very limited knowledge and skill of their wards.
Such widespread deficiency in primary education has become a national issue. The Supreme Court has looked into the matter and passed a judgement that would force school level teachers to improve their knowledge and skill. However, some state governments have chosen to differ from the Apex Court’s view and have moved for a review of the verdict.
Question –
Q1. Were you a victim of low-quality school education that created trouble for you in later life? Who do you think is responsible for such a deficiency? Teachers? Students? Parents? (Length of the answer should not be less than 10 lines.)
Q2. Why does the Tamil Nadu government feel that implementation of the Supreme Court order could disrupt school education dangerouly?
Q3. Make sentences with the following words as instructed …..
Spectre, Loom as noun and verb, Mandate as noun and verb, Exempt, Dislodge, Circumvent, Purview, Aid as noun and verb