Limitations make RTE Act difficult to implement

Dayanand Jha has a high court order in hand. Though dated December 2011, it hasn’t been of any use.

Dayanand’s son is among 31 economically weaker section (EWS) category students who are not allowed to attend the digital SMART classes in school. The HC order directs the school to stop such discrimination. However, nine months later, Jha’s son and others are still not allowed to attend these classes at east Delhi’s St Lawrence Convent. They also face everyday acts of discrimination. Most recently, Jha’s son, a class two student, was not allowed to go to toilet despite repeated requests.

When contacted, the school refused to comment on the issue.

Limitations inherent in the Right To Education (RTE) Act interferes with its implementation. Though 2013 is the deadline for implementation of the Act, those involved grapple with the Act’s inadequacies.

For instance, experts say the Act lacks provisions for grievance redressal and accountability.

When Kiran Bhatty was the national coordinator of RTE at the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) she would not know whom to direct the different complaints to. “The HRD and education department haven’t specified the levels of responsibility and accountability,” she said.

Shantha Sinha, NCPCR chairperson, agrees. “What is missing is accountability in the law. The RTE Act has 60 or so entitlements. But who is to be held responsible for failure to comply with each entitlement is not in the Act,” she said. She explained that unlike the Right To Information, where accountability is time bound, no such thing exists here. Besides, RTE is a complex Act involving several authorities. “For toilets and water, you have one department, for buildings you have another, for mid-day meal and corporal punishment, another department. You have to specify who is responsible for each. This is not in the Act,” Sinha said.

“The commission has been pushing for a grievance redressal matrix at the state level. As far as I know, only two states — Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan — have done it, though they have not activated it,” she added. It is when such state and district level bodies exist that parents will know whom to approach for response.

The problem is also that the NCPCR located in Delhi cannot address everyday problems  in other parts of the country. For that, more localised bodies like gram panchayats or education departments need to be involved. Also, bodies like the school management committees should have a 70 % parents’ membership. This is in the Act but “a lot has to be done to actually empower both the local authority and school management committees” according to Sinha.

Meanwhile, at the NCPCR , Ajay Kumar, who joined as project coordinator of the RTE in March, believes that the Act has created a momentum in education, but the problem is the law’s arbitrary and conditional nature.