Fwd: [se-ed] DISCUSSION: Strategies to Increase Focus on EarlyChildhoodCare and Development. Reply by 12 March 2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alaknanda Sanap <kala.anand@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [se-ed] DISCUSSION: Strategies to Increase Focus on EarlyChildhoodCare and Development. Reply by 12 March 2010
To: Education Community <se-ed@solutionexchange-un.net.in>

Dear Members,

Before responding to the specific questions under this query, I would like to state that in situations where policy level thinking is being contemplated, facts or even established scientific evidence does not directly lead to the formation of normatively valued sentiments in everyone's mind. Putting it simply, while it is clear to the advocates that ECCE is very valuable (I hesitate using 'critical', because the debates are still on) for all children, it does not lead to all those who are aware of the facts, more so the policy-makers, to share our views that increased allocation for centre-based care-services is the natural conclusion. To ignore this gap until the powers-even-higher-up make it necessary for our policy-makers to legislate on ECCE seems evasive or naive. Academicians especially can do more for us here by exploring the reasons, beliefs and values surrounding ECCE in India. This has somehow assumed more importance for me, as my experience shows that the there is a dissonance between expressed value of 'wholesome, good quality ECCE and actual behaviour and choices that people exhibit.

The second point is related to this. While the rights-frame is a familiar context for thinking about ECCE, for parents who do have resources and awareness of ECCE, it is the context of educational access-success that is the dominant context for ECCE. Thus, without changing or at least taking into account this context, we cannot progress far in our dialogue.

Thirdly, as many of our members have already stated, we need to have diverse options in provision of ECCE. Thus, ECE will get separated from care, health screening and other services under some options. Again, private provision cannot be ruled out.  

My comments on the queries raised:

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?

I feel that it is better that the right to centre-based ECE is not justifiable. The existing mainstream programme catering to centre-based ECCE in India is completely lacking in care and educational aspects and in the health services too, failing to achieve the desired outcomes. Even otherwise, centre-based provision has its detractors, and home-based care (or a varying mix of both) should also form part of policy so that children get good care wherever they are. It cannot be denied that the policymakers have reneged on the promise to children below 6 at this point, but this is an opportunity to ask for more than education when the time comes.

If it is the latter, what kind of government's commitment and public provisions would define this right operationally?

If people are educated, employed and aware, they will be able to provide the stimulating environment that children need, or make provisions for it. Thus, policies and allocations regarding education-literacy for all, employment (as well as unemployment benefits), maternity leave and benefits, health, food policy and policy on ECE personnel training will all form part of the government's commitment for children. Predictably, this is asking for too much from our policy-makers, and needs more coordination among different policy-advocates than is seen at present. As also, some policies may entrench existing gendered-roles of child care, so it is a tight walk. As Geeta has suggested, expanding the scope of current policies and programs, like ICDS, PDS, SSA and NREGA will be the right place to begin. 

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?

Reduce the wide variation in quality. Tough decisions on regulation of private providers is as necessary as increasing the number of Anganwadis under ICDS. Though it is the most difficult area, curriculum for ECE is the key here. Preschools that are in fact school-training institutions exist, and they operate because there is a need they cater to. On the other hand, the mainstream ICDS greatly waters down ECE making a farce of the much touted benefits of ECCE for disadvantaged children. This is indeed an area that even advocates have disagreements about, so heightened dialogue could be a start.

As Geeta has noted, the temptation of loading additional elements without appropriate monetary support (and training) should be avoided. Burdening anganwadi workers with more ECE responsibilities should not be limited to adding more columns in the MPR.

Again, 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?

If sound ECCE becomes measurable in terms of indicators, then alone can we proceed to the monitoring mechanisms. Step one is to agree on what will be included and what will not be.

Geeta's idea of a social worker is very good, and a health-education-psychology trained Social worker who covers not only ECCE but also other child rights (nutrition, education and esp. protection) should be explored.

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)

While it is true that we need legislation for ECCE, clubbing ECCE with RTE will also interlink school education and ECE irreversibly, and this is not very welcome for a variety of reasons. There should be a separate act. Hopefully we might even have a better act if we learn from the RTE policy making process

Regards,

Alaknanda Sanap

National University of Educational Planning and Administration

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 86^th 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 86^th 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