---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Geeta Verma <geeta219@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:02 AM
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: Geeta Verma <geeta219@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:02 AM
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, we are starting today's first response from Geeta Verma. We would be posting few more responses during the day. We are very happy to see that members as well as non members, working on the issues have geared up and offering their very valuable response to the issue.
I want to emphasis that ECCE is both a right and a major contributor to development as highlighted by international frameworks and commitments like, Convention on the Rights to the Child of 1989, World Declaration on Education for All of 1990 which stated that learning begins at birth hence efforts should be on ECCE. The World Education Forum, a decade later, at Dakar in 2000 further strengthened this commitment as set up 'enhancement of early childhood care and education' as one of the goals to be achieved in coming years. Over the years, discussion on ECCE has been gaining momentum at international level though not much has happened at the national level. The historic 'Right to Education' Act also failed to bring 0-6 age group in its fold, leaving an important age group, due to constitution. Therefore, government is not liable or obliged to provide opportunities for learning and development at early stage. It is an important debate why constitutional amendments are influenced by financial provisions even if change concerns the larger interest.
As we all know, education and children's rights/issues are handled by two different ministries therefore a different legislation framework or act is more suitable option for ECCE provisioning considering the battle of RTE.
There is some hope as Indian constitution through article 45 illustrates that 'The State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age six". This article is not binding to the states but there has been acknowledgment to the fact that early childhood care and education is to be made available. In past, flagship program of government of India, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), primarily focused on health and nutrition care though conceptual framework of ICDS clearly identifies all critical domains for children' growth. Out of all, education was one of the important domains which had been faded away at the level of planning and implementation. Over past three decades, the focus remained on health and nutrition (though important one!!) with limited attention to education within the program. Planners and implementers have not acknowledged the need for an enabling decentralized system which understands the holistic development. The % of vacancies of supervisors in all states clearly tells us how important government think of supervisors who can play a catalyst role in training of Aanganwadi workers as well as in supportive supervision. Lack of resource institutions at decentralized level is another gap area for effective implementation and to address contextual needs.
Given the past limitations, ICDS does not seem to be best strategy for early childhood education however this is the only scheme covering rights of 0-6 years of age group. Therefore, there is no point in duplication of schemes though we all aware of shortfalls of ICDS, hence efforts should be geared towards effective inclusion of early childhood education within the setting of Integrated Child Development Services. This will require change in training curriculum and supportive structure for Aanganwadi workers, supervisors and Cods. In next efforts, community should be oriented on the need of early childhood education. Universalization of the scheme provides more space and has opened scope for universal coverage hence separate mechanism for implementation of early childhood education will be a herculean and futile task. The advocacy should be for centre based education and stimulation for 3-6 years and on overhauling of ICDS so that functionaries at all levels understand the significance of early childhood education. It requires continuous advocacy to make required changes in present scheme so that ICDS centre should seen as early childhood education centers by community who does not attach much importance. CARE experience of working with ICDS centers, in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, suggests that ICDS can change and early childhood education can become focal point of all the interventions. I am completely aware that ANI is different setting than mainland but changes have happened in ICDS.
Secondly, both, 0-3 and 3-6 years, age groups require different approaches to address their needs. Centre based approach is more appropriate for older age group, 3-6 years, since children in this age group require more adult-children, peer-peer interaction to develop socio-cultural, cognitive, language, physical and motor skills as well as for school readiness. It lays foundation for early reading and learning and for smooth transition to primary schooling. Whereas 0-3 years children require early stimulation within the familiar settings of home. Given the vastness of India, challenges are enormous and suggestion of one approach may be more implementers' friendly than actually suiting to social-cultural contexts. This means both approached can be adopted as per the context however there should be norms and regulations for both centre based and home based care on the line of Right to Education (education profile of facilitators, space of the centre, material, training, monitoring, curriculum, etc). However, two approaches will require different kinds of planning, financial norms, human resources, capacity inputs and monitoring. Due to scale, there are chances that openness within strategy may dilute at implementation level. In this context, centre based approach is more appropriate for older children given the scale, human resources, capacity inputs and monitoring process. It is imperative to highlight that current ICDS structure can not deliver the good quality early childhood education due to number of bottlenecks. One of the major challenges is poor capacity of AWW who is required to provide inputs on health, nutrition. At the same time, she had to be a teacher to provide early childhood education. Along with this, she has to work with adolescent girls to orient and aware them about life skills. Infact, all the government schemes tend to rest on this field level worker. We need to think about the capacity of low-paid and semi-educated woman who does not have much support at the decentralized level.
At the end, I want to state that strong political will is required to draw up a new legal framework for ECCE which seem to be lacking at this time.
Thank you
Geeta Verma
CARE India
New Delhi
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