---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Anandalakshmy <anandalakshmy@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [se-ed] DISCUSSION: Strategies to Increase Focus on EarlyChildhoodCare and Development. Reply by 17 March 2010
To: Education Community <se-ed@solutionexchange-un.net.in>
From: S. Anandalakshmy <anandalakshmy@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [se-ed] DISCUSSION: Strategies to Increase Focus on EarlyChildhoodCare and Development. Reply by 17 March 2010
To: Education Community <se-ed@solutionexchange-un.net.in>
Moderator's Note: Dear Members, this is the last posting for today by S. Anandalakshmy, a well known expert on Early Childhood Care and Development. We will resume with a set of new responses tomorrow. Till then, happy reading!
The discussion, initiated by venita, goes far beyond the scope of any expert in early childhood development and child rights.
"What kind of Government provision?" is the key question in the first part. We would certainly like to have a provision for ALL children from birth to six years, rather than for the ages 3 to 6 only. Let me begin by giving you a little history
A little history
Many of you reading this would have been born in the last three or four decades, while some of us have a personal history of egging Governments to legislate for child care and education, for as many years. In fact, ICDS was born out of such an effort.
Meera Mahadevan had set up Mobile Crèches in 1969 and barely two years later, she was invited to a meeting to discuss child care for the poor. I think the concept of 'low cost' had appeal. I went with her and remember the meeting at the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW), with Mr. Bhalla and someone from the ICCW- Delhi also present, where we were asked to specify the minimum provisions for a child care centre.
Following this, the Government of India asked Mina Swaminathan to constitute a group which would go into the planning and outlay for the universalization of early childhood care centres. The outcome was the Swaminathan Report (1972, I think) which set the stage for the ICDS. If I remember right, the term "Anganwadi" was coined by a founder member of the Indian Association for Preschool Education (IAPE), the unforgettable Anutai Wagh of Thane. (If I am wrong, I take refuge behind the occupational hazard of my profession – a selective bad memory and generally, absentmindedness)!
Is time cyclical and have we come full circle?
As far back, as the early seventies, we were debating the same issues as we are raising today. I must admit that there was some euphoria in those days – the thought that we had probably enabled the vast number of babies born not only to survive, but to thrive, to grow up as confident youngsters, fulfilling their potential. Have our hopes been belied? Not entirely, but the process is so slow and our ability to reach out so inadequate to the scale of needs, that we have to force ourselves not to say, 'yes' to the question.
As we all know, ICDS started with the inclusion of pregnant mothers and their nutrition, with health checks and treatment, with the growth and development of infants, toddlers and children of the preschool age. What one can wish for in providing a setting for the holistic development of children were all there -- plans to get the women in the community involved in their own wellbeing and that of their children and to optimally utilize the time of the Anganwadi worker in being a change agent.
We may need hard headed realists
As a nation, we are good at drawing up blueprints and terrible at putting them into operation. You may argue, of course, that the past does not have to repeat itself. Maybe, Generation Next will find the methods to implement the plans. But it does seem Utopian to say that any child, wherever born, will have full access to wholesome and holistic development, if only we can get our Government to enact the necessary provisions.
An example, maybe a digression
We know that the (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) NREGA, now Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) still has daily hurdles to cross, even for workers to get paid for 100 days of hard labor per year at minimum wages. And these are for adults whose votes still count. Young children do not add to the ballot and can be safely ignored till they come of age. And the tone of the current policy seems to be "Back the winner". The Forbes list, with a few more billionaires, brings cheer to those in power, so why worry about a few million starving children? They cast a shadow on our growing economic clout and should be kept out of sight, as far as possible.
If all this sounds cynical to the reader, I apologies and would defend it as just being realistic.
Local Initiatives: power in the hands of the people
Having said all this, I would still support some legislation that brings children under the umbrella of good parenting, health cover and education. The care for the child from birth to three especially, should reach the child in the home and not necessarily be centre-based. Panchayati Raj, where it flourishes or even only works moderately well, can provide the best institutional support that infants in families can get. I think it is quite complex and to spell out its operational method would require more time and administrative 'knowhow' than I can command at this point.
Make advocacy more effective
We could suggest early childhood education settings for children from 3 to 6 years, but how would this differ from the ICDS? Can we also think of getting the ICDS centres to work more efficiently and take a child-centred approach? For this purpose, can we use Community Radio, a voice of the "aam admi", in areas where it works well? Can we persuade the Government TV channel to forgo advertisement revenues and to use it for community education? (This would include information on the steps the citizens, even the least powerful, can take if an anganwadi closes too early, or where the educational activities are ignored).
Letting us have some autonomy
We do not know how much longer the early years of education will be defined as "6 to 14 years". Nevertheless trying to get early childhood into the RTE seems doomed. For one thing, Nursery schools and other preschool institutions are already starting formal classes in reading, writing and numbers, despite the forty years of IAPE enthusiasts who have tried to emphasize play, freedom and happiness. If early education comes under the purview of the RTE, it is bound to be the most neglected section of the Act. It will be an uneasy living arrangement.
Also, ambitious parents will want to have 'business management' as a theme for the four-year-olds, so that when they later join a business school at age 22, they would have a head start! By this I mean that by bringing early childhood under the Education umbrella, we may send a wrong message to schools and PTAs that 'earlier is better'!
Ending with a note of hope
I may have sounded a bit discouraging, but I continue to be an optimist. Maybe, this time something will work.
I have not mentioned political lobbying to get our ideas supported. That is a whole other chapter, but it may be the only effective step to move ahead on the path. Maybe, with more women to represent us in the House, we can raise a collective voice on behalf of young children! Maybe.
S. Anandalakshmy
Independent Consultant
Chennai
Moderator's Note: Dear Members, after a long time, we are happy to initiate a discussion on Early Childhood Care and Education for members' advice. As all of us would agree, this issue is of significance, given the importance of 0-6 years, in a persons' life. The kind of developmental and early learning opportunities as well as nutrition and health inputs a child is able to receive at this age, has a lot of bearing on her future.
We are happy to announce that Venita Kaul, a known specialist in the area of Early Childhood Care and Development has agreed to be the Guest Moderator for this discussion. Venita Kaul recently retired as Senior Education Specialist from World Bank, India office and has written extensively on the educational and developmental needs of this age group. Even after her retirement from the World Bank, her focus is maintained on ECCD. We are sure members would be forthcoming in sharing their advice and suggestions for better strategization of ECCD in the country.
We look forward to your active participation.
Shubhangi
Dear Members,
I work for Center for Early Childhood Education and Development (CECED), which is located in Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD). CECED's mission is to contribute to the national goals of social justice and equity by advocating for and promoting every child's right to a sound foundation for life, through contextually appropriate and inclusive ECED and to place ECED in the forefront of policy formulation and effective programme implementation.
After a long battle, education has become the fundamental right for children in the age group of 6-14 years. However, the Right to Education Act has left out the very important age group of children below 6 years. The reason given is the fact that 86th Constitutional Amendment and its Article 21A through which right to education was accepted as a fundamental right, talks about children between the age group of 6-14 only.
Therefore, the Act clearly excludes and thus violates the right of the 0-6 and 14 to 18 year old children. As a Bill flowing out of the Amendment, it is clear that the Bill can not go beyond Article 21A, which makes it imperative that the 86th amendment must be re-amended to correct this anomaly, and when that happens, the change needs to be reflected in the corresponding Act at that point of time.
However, this omission has resulted in the exclusion of 17 crore children of 0-6 years age group from their entitlement to education as their fundamental right, which is a major cause of concern, given that this age is now empirically established as the most important and formative stage of a person's life. Given this concern, the issue of inclusion of children below 6 years in the Right to Education bill is being raised in several forums.
In the context of the above, we invite members to share their views on how they believe this important age group and its entitlements should be catered to.
We wish to hear your advice on the following:
- Should it be a justifiable right for only 3-6 year olds and that also to center based Early Childhood Education? Or should it be a right to a stimulating, healthy and enabling environment for all children, from birth to 6 years no matter where they are located? If it is the latter, what kind of government's commitment and public provisions would define this right operationally?
- If it should be only for 3 to 6 year olds and through a center based provision, what steps would be needed to ensure access to every child, given the wide variations in quality? If it is not conceptualized as institution/center based ECCD, but more holistically, what would be the monitoring mechanisms to ensure that every child's right to sound ECCE is fulfilled?
- Should there be a separate act for the right to education and development of 0-6 age group? Or should it be part of the Right to Education Act, given that the nodal Ministries for the two are different (for elementary education it is the Ministry of Human Resource Development and for ECCE it is the Ministry of Women and Child Development
Your inputs and advice will strengthen the advocacy and efforts of diverse sets of people in the area of ECCD and would also give us a clear direction to design our own activities and efforts as a Centre dedicated to early childhood care and development
Regards,
Venita Kaul
Center for Early Childhood Education and Development (CECED)
Ambedkar University,
Delhi
--
Ch.Santakar
Pujariput
Koraput-764020
Orissa
Mob:09437192553
e-mail:santakar@gmail.com
web:www.koraputonline.com
No comments:
Post a Comment