---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shubhangi Sharma <s.sharma@unesco.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:52 PM
Subject: [se-ed] Discussion Summary: Strategies to Increase Focus on EarlyChildhood Care and Development
To: Education Community <se-ed@solutionexchange-un.net.in>

The PDF version of this Discussion Summary can be downloaded at: http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/education/cr/cr-se-ed-2203106.pdf (Size 366 KB)

Education Community

Solution Exchange for the Education Community

Consolidated Reply

Discussion: Strategies to Increase Focus on Early Childhood Care and Development

Summary by Venita Kaul Guest Moderator and Shubhangi Sharma Resource Person

Compiled by Shubhangi Sharma, Resource Person and Shreya Baruah, Research Associate

Issue Date: 26 March 2010

From Venita Kaul, Center for Early Childhood Education and Development (CECED) Ambedkar University, New Delhi

Posted 25 February 2010

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.

Responses were received, with thanks, from

1. Kanav Hasija, Kharagpur Consulting Group, Kharagpur

2. Anjela Taneja, ActionAid India, New Delhi

3. Shashi Prakash, Aide et Action, New Delhi

4. Manasi Dash , BAPSI, New Delhi

5. Umesh Chandra Gaur, Confederation of Community Based Organizations of India, New Delhi

6. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority, Bhubaneswar

7. Geeta Menon, CARE India , New Delhi

8. Kalyan Dangar , Cohesion foundation, Gujarat

9. Zakiya Kurrien, Centre For Learning Resources, Pune (Response1) (Response 2)

10. Alaknanda Sanap, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi

11. Jigisha Shastri , M.S.University of Baroda, Vadodara

12. Hemantha Kumar Pamarthy, Hand in Hand Micro Finance Limited, Chennai

13. Rama Kant Rai , National Coalition for Education, New Delhi

14. Suman Swarup, Independent Consultant, New Delhi

15. Anubha Rajesh, ICF International, New Delhi

16. Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Freelance Consultant for Educational Institutes, New Delhi

17. Vrinda Datta, Tata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai

18. Shubhi Sachdeva, Ambedkar University, New Delhi

19. Sameen Almas , Ambedkar University, Delhi

20. Sunil Batra, Shikshantar, Gurgaon

21. Geeta Verma, CARE India, New Delhi

22. Padmini, Child Rights Trust, Bangalore

23. Parul Taneja, National Council of Education Research and Training, New Delhi

24. Radhika Herzberger, Rishi Valley Education Centre, Andhra Pradesh

25. K.Lakshmi, Andhra Mahila Sabha, Hyderabad

26. Asha Singh , Lady Irwin College, New Delhi

27. Smitha Kalyani, Association for India's Development, Chennai

28. S. Anandalakshmy , Independent Consultant, Chennai

29. Vimala Ramachandran, Educational Research Unit, New Delhi

30. Mahima Mitra , University of Oxford, United Kingdom

31. Mina Swaminathan , M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai

32. Geeta Chopra , Institute of Home Economics, New Delhi

33. Latha Bhaskar, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Kerala

34. Bhawna Tripathi , Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra

35. D.D.Pandey, National Institute for Public Cooperation and Child Development, New Delhi

36. B.L.Kaul, Society for Popularization of Science and Progressive Educational Society, Jammu

37. Ganesh Upadhyay, National Council of Education Research and Training, New Delhi (Response 1) (Response 2)

38. Rajan Thampi, Birraju Foundation, Andhra Pradesh

39. Umesh Chandra Pandey, School of Good Governance and Policy Analysis, Bhopal

40. Anjali Noronha, Eklavya, Bhopal*

41. Jessy Abraham, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi*

*Offline Contribution

Further contributions are welcome!

Summary of Responses

Related Resources

Responses in Full

Summary of Responses

The notion of Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) includes four basic needs of children which are survival, development, protection and participation. Combining these four, ECCD is both a right and a contribution to development of a nation. There are host of international frameworks and commitments in which this right has been highlighted. Convention on Rights to Children (1989), World Declaration on Education for all, Jometien (1990) among others, have clearly stated the importance of ECCE given that "learning begins at birth". In the World Education Forum, at Dakar (2000) also, this commitment was further strengthened by reaffirming ECCE as the first amongst the six goals, which states "expand and improve comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children". The Indian Constitution also, through its Article 45, illustrates that "state shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years". All these affirmations, frameworks and commitments clearly state the significance of ECCE/D in the life of a person. The Integrated Child Development Services Programme of Government of India, which is perhaps the largest programme in the world that addresses children up to the age of 6, is seen as the vehicle for translating the constitutional commitment into action by responding to all critical domains for children's growth, including education, nutrition and health. However, despite this provision the status of ECCD has not been of satisfactory quality. Financing of ECCD is another major bottleneck. Social sector already is least funded in India and even within that, ECCD occupies last priority.

In the light of the above and the recently passed Right to Education Act, attention has been drawn to ECCD and its undue neglect. It is unfortunate to note that over the years ICDS programme lost on one of its critical domain which was 'non-formal preschool education' and remained confined to health and nutrition. This was also the outcome of the overwhelming programmes and policy emphasis on provision of adequate 'nutrition' which relegated the other legitimate development needs of children to the background. Consequently, learning needs of the children were pushed aside and seemed out of focus of the national consensus.

The recently passed Right to education Act is the glaring indication of the growing neglect of 0-6 age group as it left out a huge population of more than 17 crore children outside the purview of the Right to free and compulsory education. Combined with that, there are several more formidable challenges that the present form and process of ECCD is encountering. The existing monitoring mechanisms as well provisions are also not contributing to the growth and quality of ECCD.

The Right to Education Act has triggered of a set of passionate discourse and debate around incorporating 0-6 age group in the Act or having a separate Act to cater to the holistic needs of these children. In addition, questions are emerging around centre based approach to ECCD as against home /community based model; the much criticized public provisioning of ECCD and the monitoring mechanisms to be put in place to improve the present conditions . The following sections are an attempt to discuss various dimensions of the issues concerned and put forth the arguments given by very eminent respondents and champions of ECCE, for each set of questions, which could inform policy and practices around ECCD.

Center based vs. home based vs. community based approach to Early Childhood Care and Development

The emerging view very emphatically is that possibly this whole issue needs to be seen a little differently than the way it is being seen addressed as of now. There is a need to adopt multi pronged approach and make available diverse options to address the developmental needs of the age group in question. Different strategies and programmes are needed at different stages catering to the needs of that particular stage. Perhaps, a combination of models is required with effective arrangements of implementation, governance and monitoring.

For 0-3 years, the home based model combined with community based model, is perhaps the most appropriate solution. The reason given is that children in the 0-3 year age group, require early stimulation within the familiar settings of their homes. However, in places where mothers are working, it is essential to recognize the need for center based crèche facilities.

For 3-6 year old children, center based approach is recommended since peer interaction and exposure is required to develop language, physical, cognitive and motor skills and readiness for school, which facilitates smooth transition of children from preschool centres to formal schools. However, the center based approach by itself cannot function as the only source of early education and there must be a mechanism in place to support the ECD programme with education and involvement of parents and local communities, to complement the needed inputs.

Government commitment and public provisions

There is a consensus that this area requires maximum attention and reforms. There are a range of problems identified with respect to vacancies of the ECCD workers and supervisors; trainings of the front line staff; curriculum, infrastructure, governance and so on. Some of the steps suggested which are immediately desired to be taken are -

Filling up vacancies of supervisors in all states to make available supportive supervision and accompaniment of Anganwadi workers in the process
Provision of 'resource institutions' at decentralized level for effective implementation and to address contextual needs
Availability of pre-school teacher in accordance with the number of children requiring care along with providing for second Anganwadi Workers for ensuring standard of quality of care and education.
Preparation of state, sub-state officials and local government along with the immediate field functionaries, on the significance and basic pedagogy of ECCD.
Involvement of parents and use of critical family resources that will help children to construct a more culturally appropriate learning content, concepts and values.
Establish and ensure quality standards for the pre school and nutrition components.
Regular and more effective training and skill up-gradation of AWWs on understanding of child development and ECE outcomes
Overhauling the ICDS programme with up-gradation of existing Anganwadis', ensuring effective inclusion of ECE systemically within the ICDS program. This would also need to be combined with necessary changes in training , curriculum and support structures for the ICDS work force, as is done for example by CARE in Himanchal Pradesh
Conversion of mini Aganwadis' to full fledged centers and fine tuning those to suit the developmental needs of the children.
Formulation of a similar National Curricular Framework as is worked out in the case of elementary education; specifically for preschool education, with flexibility for differing social and cultural contexts

And finally, setting up a national body authorized to look after the smooth administration of educational and developmental provisions for children in this age group, is strongly recommended. This step is expected to regulate the ECCD sector, infuse energy and quality and deliver as expected with tight and efficient support system in place. In order to regulate the mis-educative practices it is also advisable to set up "Child Development Boards" in the states, as also advocated by the Focus group on ECCD in 2006.

Monitoring Mechanisms to ensure children their right

The general view is that at the moment the monitoring mechanisms within the ECCD sector are pretty weak and need major reforms. Some improvements suggested are-

Eliciting support from local self governance bodies by creating ownership of the programme while strengthening mechanisms for community support through engaging them in the planning and processes of ECCD.
Review and strengthening of current monitoring system within ICDS.
Development of a cadre of "social workers/community workers" to enable communities' to plan and implement strategies as well as support and monitor inclusion of child rights activities in different programs and schemes in addition to liaison with primary health care system, education system and children's homes.
Introduction of some form of licensing for existing and new ECCE programs to regulate the sector and ensure quality in the services offered. This is to be combined with minimum specification and accreditation; some believe enrolment in ECCE centers should be made compulsory.
Creation of sustained spaces and forums for Interaction between parents and teachers on regular intervals to engage parents in the process of ECCD.
Support to indigenous research in the field of ECCD through collaboration between government and academic institutions, rather than depending on international research only.
Development of a National Data base and statistical indicators for ECCE are a must. For that a well designed institutional monitoring system has to be established in each state and at the national level to facilitate convergence and coordination mechanism across players including public sector, private sector and CBO/NGO initiatives. While designing these, the parameters adopted by UNICEF in data base MICS (Multi indicator cluster survey) could be taken into consideration.
Norms and standards to be defined with regard to all aspect of the programme such as infrastructure, content and materials, budgetary provision, training and capacity building etc. to ensure quality of the programme.

ECCD as part of Right to Education Act or a Separate Act

Diverse views have emerged in response to this question. However, there are legitimate reasons put forth for incorporating ECCD under RTE as a justiciable right, primarily so that the continuum is ensured in the education ladder and the overall responsibility be given to the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The National Focus Group on Early Childhood Education, constituted in connection with 11^th five year plan process, also unequivocally concluded that ECCE must be brought firmly within the framework of Education For All (EFA) and UEE, "with responsibility and accountability for all programmes for children above 3 years lying with the Department for Elementary Education and Literacy, while programmes for children below 3 years will be the responsibility of the Department of Women and Child Development."

However, given the fact that it has earlier been part of the same Ministry and nothing significant could be achieved; rather ECCD got neglected, a more cautious approach is perhaps the need of the hour. There are also legal hurdles in getting this age group incorporated in the RTE act. A re-amendment of the 36^th constitutional amendment and subsequent changes in the Article 21 A would be required if this age group is to be added under the aegis of the Act. This is not a simple exercise and would require sufficient time along with political and administrative will to go through the process. Also, even after going through the drill of having this age group incorporated in the RTE, as past experiences show, it is bound to be the most neglected section of the act.

The contrary view put forth is that instead, a distinct legal framework for ECCD provisioning is desired which would require a separate, over-arching and enabling Act to look at holistic development of the child during 0-6 years of age, incorporating home based family education as well as holistic child care. Since, in addition to Education, a whole range of other developmental needs are also to be catered to, with respect to this age group, its placement under the Ministry of Women and Child Development is more appropriate. What is also required is that along with a separate Act, there is a normative framework put in place for existing and further provisions and schemes.

The prerequisite is to undertake mapping of the existing provisions by the state, private players, civil society and other alternative providers to provide for a framework for early childhood provisioning, to fulfill all the needs ranging from health, nutrition, sanitation and immunization. There is also a dire need to expand the scope of current policies and programmes such as Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Public Distribution System (PDS), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) backed by adequate plans and resources to respond to ECCD concerns, taking the family as a unit. This would also mean strengthening prevailing ICDS and up-gradation of Anganwadis into modern day care centers. Anganwadis' need to be the tunnel for the developmental needs of the children.

An interesting suggestion was that probably, setting up the elementary school, balwadi and adult education program in the same premises will offer an opportunity for schools to serve as Resource centers for Anganwadis' and in turn would strengthen reciprocal bonds. Importance also needs to be placed on the awareness aspect, using different modes of mass media. A useful suggestion was to encourage use of the community radio which could be an effective, decentralized medium, for spreading the message of 'child centered approach'

Along with an Act in place, development of a comprehensive strategy for 0 to 6 years olds coupled with actionable plans is a must, which should take into account the historical challenges, successes and failures in the past and learn from them. Possibly a National Policy on ECCD would be needed to enable this planning. The policy would offer a normative framework for existing and future provisions and schemes. In the final analysis, placing focus on the Child as the central concern of policy is important, along with a realistic and justified budget allocation and mechanisms in place to ensure purposeful utilization of allocated resources.

Related Resources

Recommended Documentation

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Document; Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf (PDF 112 KB)

An international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social & cultural rights of children.

World Declaration on Education for All and Framework for Action to meet Basic Learning Needs

Report; UNESCO; 7 ,place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP;

Available at http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/JOMTIE_E.PDF (PDF 288 KB)

Useful guides for governments, international organization, educators designing and carrying out policies and strategies to improve basic education services

World Education Forum at Dakar (2000)

Dakar framework Education for all ;by UNESCO;

Available at http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/efa/DakarFrameworkEnglish.pdf (PDF 64.7 KB)

World Education Forum to review the progress made since the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand in March 1990

Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme,

Document; by; Ministry of Women and Child Development;

Available at http://wcd.nic.in/icds.htm (HTML )

ICDS Scheme represents one of the world's largest and most unique programmes for early childhood development.

The Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Document; by Ministry of Human Resource Development; Department of School Education & Literacy ; Authority; New Delhi; 27 August 2009;

Available at http://education.nic.in/Elementary/free%20and%20compulsory.pdf(PDF1.48 KB)

The right to Education Act, 2009 to provide free and compulsory education to all children's of the age of six to fourteen years

Strong foundations- Early Childhood Care and Education

Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007; by UNESCO;

Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001477/147794e.pdf (PDF 6.09MB)

The Education for All goals focus on the need to provide learning opportunities at every stage in life, from infancy to adulthood.

Early Childhood

Status Report 2006 on Early Childhood Care and Education; by HAQ:Centre for Child Rights;

Available at http://www.haqcrc.org/fileadmin/home1/Status%20Report%202006/ECCD.pdf (PDF 2.35 MB)

HAQ: Center for Child Rights status report on Early Childhood and Education 2006.

Early Childhood Care and Education Experiences in India

Report; Aide et Action;

Available at http://www.aea-southasia.org/Uploads/ecce-experiences-in-india1.pdf(PDF 354.2KB)

Booklet providing a comprehensive understanding on issues related to implementation of early childhood care and education programs, capacity building

Case Study of the Status of India's Early Childhood Care and Education Services

Case study on the status of children in ECCE; by Das. Deepa; For UNESCO; New Delhi ; April 2003; Available at

http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/file_download.php/20bd37d284a34d514aef4611b6b88ad8India.pdf (PDF 728.62 KB)

Case study of the status of India's Early Childhood care and education services in India.

The social agenda and early childhood care and education:

Online Outreach Paper; by Gammage. Philip; Bernard van Leer Foundation,; Netherlands; 2008;

Available at

http://www.bernardvanleer.org/publication_store/publication_store_publications/the_social_agenda_and_early_childhood_care_and_education_can_we_really_help_create_a_better_world_/file (PDF 330.60 KB)

Paper taking a broad overview & setting the context or background for the factors that influence the provision of early childhood education & care.

Transforming Early Childhood Care and Education in the Insular South-East Asia and Mekong Sub-Regions: Implications of the Global Monitoring Report 2007.

Global Monitoring Report 2007; by UNESCO; Bangkok; 2008;

Available at http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/201_202/GMR_ECCE2007.pdf(PDF 3.2 MB)

Report focuses on ECCE in Insular South-East Asia and the Mekong (Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Thailand and Viet Nam)

Working Group on Development of Children for the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012)- A Report

Sub Group Report on Early Childhood Education in the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012); by ; Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan. New Delhi;

Available at http://wcd.nic.in/wgearlychild.pdf (PDF 390.70KB)

In the context of the formulation of Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012), the Government of India decided to set up a working group on "Development of Children".

Education for all by 2015 – will we make it?

Report of the Colloquium held in the Jeffrey Hall, January 17th 2008; Compiled by Angela W. Little and Nicole Blum; United Kingdom Forum for International Education and Training;

Available at http://www.ukfiet.org/documents/Final%20Colloquium%20Report.doc (MS Doc. 716KB)

It assesses progress towards the goals of Education for All agreed at Dakar in 2000 and prospects of reaching the targets set for 2015.

Public Distribution System

Report; by Economic Survey of Delhi-2001-2002;

Available at http://delhiplanning.nic.in/Economic%20Survey/Ecosur2001-02/PDF/chapter19.PDF (PDF 10.3KB)

The public distribution system (PDS) ensure the distribution of essential items such as selected cereals, sugar and kerosene at subsidized prices to holders of ration cards.

Recommended Organizations and Programmes

Ministry of Human Resource Development , New Delhi

Ministry of Human Resource Development ,Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001;Tel:011-23383936;Fax:011-23381355webmaster.edu@nic.in;http://www.education.nic.in

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) is an Indian government ministry, responsible for the development of human resources

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, New Delhi

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001; Tel: 91-11-23383936; Fax: 91-11-23381355 webmaster.edu@nic.in ;www.ssa.nic.in;

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is Government of India's flagship programme for achievement of Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE) in a time bound manner

Ministry of Women and Child Development , New Delhi

Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, 6th Floor , 'A' Wing , Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001;Tel: 011-23381601;Fax:011-23381495 ; http://wcd.nic.in;

MHRD was set up as a part of the Ministry of Human Resource Development to give the much needed impetus to the holistic development of women and children

Ambedkar University, New Delhi

Ambedkar University, Delhi, Integrated Institute of Technology Campus, Sector 9, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077; Tel: 011-2507 4053;info@aud.ac.in; http://www.aud.ac.in/ceced.asp;

Bharat Ratna Dr B.R. Ambedkar Vishwavidyalaya, Delhi (Ambedkar University) was established by the Government of the NCT of Delhi through an Act of Legislature.

Bi-directional Access Promotion SocIety (BAPSI) , New Delhi (from Manasi Dash, BAPSI, New Delhi )

Arun Mehta, B-69, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-24;info@bapsi.org; www.bapsi.org

Bapsi works for supporting the Information and Communication poorest by providing them a way to communicate.

Save the Children- Bal Raksha Bharat, New Delhi

Save the Children, Bal Raksha, Bharat, 4th Floor, Farm Bhawan, 14-15 Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019;Tel:011-42294900;Fax:011-42294990.info@savethechildren.in; www.savethechildren.in;

World's leading independent organization for children that works to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children to achieve immediate & lasting change in their lives.

CARE India, New Delhi

27 Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi - 110 016; Tel: 011-26566060.; Fax: 011-26564081/26564084 ; www.careindia.org ;

Implementing large scale, qualitative projects that positively impact the most vulnerable communities and influence policy change.

National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development, New Delhi

5 Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016; Tel: 011-26964373, 26963382;Fax:011- 26865187 pauldinesh@vsnl.com; www.nipccd.nic.in;

NIPCCD, is a premier organisation devoted to promotion of voluntary action research, training and documentation in the overall domain of women and child development

Mobile Creches, New Delhi

DIZ Area, Raja Bazaar, Sector IV, Near Gole Market, New Delhi 110 001; Tel: 011-23347635 / 23363271 ; Fax: 011-23347281.; mail@mobilecreches.org ; www.mobilecreches.org

Mobile Creches works at multiple levels to move closer to its vision and to ensure holistic development of young children with a special focus on birth to 3 years

HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi

B-1/2, Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi -110017; Tel: 011-26673599.; Fax: 011-26674688 info@haqcrc.org; www.haqcrc.org;

HAQ: Centre for Child Rights works towards the recognition, promotion and protection of rights of all children

Aide-et-Action, Chennai

South Asia Office, New No.16 (Old No.20), Gilchrist Avenue, Harrington Road, Chennai; Tel: 044 28365516-20; communication.sa@aea-southasia.org; www.aea-southasia.org

Aide et Action is an International Development Organization working in 26 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America & Carribean on issues related to Education

United Nations Children's Fund, New Delhi

UNICEF, 73 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003; Tel: 011 2469-0401, 2469-1410; Fax: 011 2462-7521, 2469-1410 newdelhi@unicef.org; www.unicef.org;

UNICEF is fully committed to ensure that each child born in this vast and complex country gets the best start in life, thrives and develops to his or her full potential.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, New Delhi

B-5/29, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi - 110 029 ; Tel: 011 26713000 ; Fax: 011 26713001 newdelhi@unesco.org; www.unesco.org;

UNESCO, specialized agency of UN purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture

World Bank, New Delhi

69-70, Lodi Estate, New Delhi-110003; Tel: 011-4617241, 4619497;; Fax: 011-4619393 hbalasubramanian@worldbank.org; www.worldbank.org.in ;

The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, New Delhi

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India; Tel: 011-23385027,23384703; Fax: 011-23384703 www.nrega.nic.in

Earlier know as NREGA, aims at enhancing the livelihood security of people in rural areas by guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial year

Centre For Learning Resources, Pune

8 Deccan College Road Yerawada Pune 411 006 ; Tel: +91-20-26692123;clr@vsnl.com; www.clrindia.net ;

Working in the fields of Early Childhood Care and Development, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education in Maharashtra and other states in India.

Responses in Full

Kanav Hasija, Kharagpur Consulting Group, Kharagpur

First of all I would like to quote that percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to education expenditure has not increased considerably in the past even after the enactment of 'Education for All'. If one reads the schedule A of 'Right of children to free & compulsory education act', you will notice that the schools are not uniform and have segregations like alternative schools, EGS centres etc. There is no uniformity and universalization of Elementary Education (UEE).

My suggestions would be:

Education Expenditure - RTI needs to filed on government expenditure on education to figure out the financial condition and policies to be made as govt. claims that they don't have enough funds for right to education for children below 6 years of age.
Two needs, One Act - It is true that children from age 2 or 3 - 6 years must be given right to education with nutrition and environmental support. Though a research needs to be done on the needs of children from age 3-6 and children from age 6-14. The needs seems to be different and government can cut upon some expenses in different need structure. Example if government bears Rs. 1000 annually on a child from age 6-14 years, government might spend Rs. 400 annually for a child from age 3-6 years.

Though, two acts need not be made for separate age groups. Two clauses with different responsibilities of the organizations can be included in the same act. Two acts will lead to more loopholes, improper implementation and less co-ordination between the two.

Uniformity- There need to uniformity in the education system especially for the first age (3-6 years) as building blocks for all must be same. India agreed on UEE in Jomtien & Dakar and must follow on the same lines.

Anjela Taneja, ActionAid India, New Delhi

At the outset, I would like to point out that the concept of Early Childhood Education (or Early Childhood Development if one took a more holistic view) covers the entire age range of 0-6 years and not just 3-6. The continued disregard of the youngest age group has resulted in the absence of provisions for early detection of children with disability (among a host of other things). Consequently, I feel the continued emphasis on provisions for children 3+ through a centre based model (while ignoring the holistic needs of younger child) has pushed the learning needs of younger children out of the national consciousness. In the absence of concerted action by ECCE advocates on the issue of learning needs of children and in the face of a comprehensive campaign on the Right to Food backed by Supreme Court Orders that principally focus on the nutritional aspects, the overwhelming programmatic and policy emphasis for children under six has moved on the provision of adequate nutrition. While child malnutrition (and starvation) is an undeniable fact that needs action on a war footing, other aspects of child care (like health) and development have been relegated to the background. Faced by the above reality, I personally think that ensuring this holistic focus would require a separate Act for a host of reasons but which boil down to the fact that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act fails to address any of the systemic issues affecting children under six. Introducing the different developmental needs of younger children in its framework would require huge modifications to the text of the present piece of legislation since the implementation mechanisms, training bodies, quality standards/norms, and monitoring systems are liable to be different for both age groups. It goes far beyond the fact that the nodal ministries for these initiatives are different.

The starting point for such a piece of legislation should be based on existing international commitments like the Dakar Framework of Action, our existing child centered policies and be guided by our experiences with holistic early childhood development programs- especially the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS). The standing Supreme Court orders for the universalization of the ICDS and repeated public pronouncements reiterating the government's commitment to the same provide another possible legal framework to demand universalization with quality. In my opinion, any intervention for ensuring holistic ECCD for all children should stem from the conceptual model around which the ICDS was originally conceptualized- as a holistic program that ensured all the needs of children. If the ICDS has over time strayed from its roots largely due to failure to back the vision with adequately thought through programme design and resources, these reasons need to be looked into and addressed. One has to look back to create a system that ensures universal access to all the components as visualized by the ICDS (including health, nutrition, sanitation, education, immunization, NHE of parents, early detection and intervention on issues of disability, universal birth registration to list a few). This would entail a rethink of the governance mechanisms, teacher/provider/manager cadre training systems, establishing unambiguous standards of provisioning (along the lines of Schedule 1 of the RTE Act- including infrastructure norms, teacher training norms, etc), model curricula/MLLs for ages, quality assurance mechanisms (including considering setting up mechanisms for recognition for early childhood providers), mechanisms of linking ECCE provisions with schooling and be backed by adequate financing. This would need to be accompanied by strengthening mechanisms for community participation and support from local self governance bodies to enable local ownership of the programmes. Any intervention towards universalization of ECCD cannot realistically be expected to run completely in parallel to the ongoing process of universalization of the ICDS. And yes, I am aware of the current failure of the government to adhere its existing commitments like the 11th Five Year plan commitment to the appointment of the Second AWW which is an absolute rock bottom minimum for ensuring any standard of quality of care and education (let alone ensuring availability of preschool teachers in accordance with the number of children requiring care). This is something that is a reflection of the civil society's failure to come together and present the issue of holistic ECCD as a rights violation and address the failure on the part of the State to ensure the same as a political issue.

Regarding the issue of centre-vs-home-vs community based provisioning of ECCE, I think that no single formula could be expected to work in a country of the size of India with the diversity it has. A combination of models would be required- each with its own model of implementation, monitoring, regulation etc. A menu of options would need to be offered to families to enable them to choose what suits them best- or atleast what is necessary for the particular social, economic and cultural context. While a home based model may be ideal for children under three, it would be essential to recognize that centre-based crèche facilities may be needed for working mothers (both salaried middle class and those working on construction sites/in the fields in villages). Similarly, some parents would with good reason prefer not to send their children to centre based facilities at 3+ years of age (we have all read research showing instances of development of children enrolled in poor quality centres being poorer compared to those who do not receive any care at all). Consequently, a mapping of the existing provisions by the State, private players, civil society and other alternative providers would be needed in order to provide a framework for early childhood provisioning that fulfills all these needs. The questions of culture and language provide additional factors in this already complicated equation since these become even more important in early childhood provisions.

In conclusion, I feel that there is a need for a distinct legal framework for ECCD provisioning. However, looking at the experience of the Right to Education Act where over a decade of advocacy has produced a piece of legislation that is far below civil society expectations, this would need a much wider and deeper process of advocacy than is apparent now. The lack of political will to implement the Right to Elementary Education despite a much broader service net, a stronger policy commitment and international legal framework is even more apparent for ECCD. Unless that is overcome, the right to ECCE/D would remain a dream.

Shashi Prakash, Aide et Action, New Delhi

My exposure to functioning of ICDS program was quite disappointing, notwithstanding the fact that it is the only government supported program which operates at sub-village level. It led me to critically think the reasons for government or users not taking this seriously.

Child nurturing was exclusive domain of family, perhaps mothers. Now that we are leading towards a system where child health, nutrition, education, and other services are being take care of by government and society, it may require a change in the concept of childhood. With 5-10 major business houses running pre-school centers and catering mainly to metropolitan and upper middle class needs, we are witnessing many new concepts being experimented. It is really enjoying (or annoying) to see parents sending a two year old in the early morning hours to one of those play schools.

One of my recent readings includes a book by Minu Swaminathan. This reminds me the fact that 0-6 (or 3-6) years of age is of intense learning, mostly done outside the school framework, which you may call practical learning or experiential learning. Group behavior, cognitive patterns, brain and body coordination and many such finer things are happening inside the child, without even any of us or child realizing it.

I completely agree with Angela, that a separate act is required which holistically look into the developmental needs of children during 0-6 years of age. This act shall not only look into matters related to health, education, nutrition but sociability, family values, play and sports also.

When done for general population, I would also like to emphasis special group needs and rights. We are doing a project with the children of sex workers in Delhi. Younger children do not find a comfortable place to live and play, when they are with mothers. Children between the age group of 3-6 essentially pick up undesirable behavior traits. There is high likelihood of discrimination and stigma when such children go to schools and interact with wider group. It has been observed in our project that children ultimately fall back to their own group, having children from similar family and social background. This process of exclusion has to be broken at the early age. I would request my friends in this community to further highlight such specific issues. In any case, we shall not be fooled by business houses running pre-school program as the model of new wave in early childhood care.

Manasi Dash, BAPSI, New Delhi

I agree with (1) what Angela said that a separate act to look at holistic development of the child during 0-6 years of age is required. And would like to add that (2) the RTE Act has neglected special children with mental challenges.

The new Act should not only look at health/nutrition, education, overall development of the child, but also look at addressing the issue of children with disabilities like Autism spectrum disorder which mostly appear at this age. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism.

Recently US have come up with figures which indicate that 11 in 100 children in the age group of 3 to 17 are having Autism Spectrum Disorder. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-10-05-autism-increa se_N.htm The situation in India may not be very different. MHRD of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment do not have figures of children with mental challenges like autism, cerebral palsy, multiple disabilities, and figures of these in any schools.

Even when the RTE Act gives right of education to each and every child, for children with disabilities it refers to PWD Act (See Chapter 2 clause 3 of the RTE Act, 2009). The PWD Act does not recognize disabilities like autism, cerebral palsy as disabilities as yet. The new legislation need to look at including all children (0-6) so that children with mental challenges also benefit. Needless to say - for this proper facilities should be there (which is a big task). The emphasis should be including them in education afterwards in normal schools along with other normal children (and not special schools). [Please visit bapsi.org and skid to know the state of affairs in case of children with mental challenges and see how technology can help children with mental challenges

Umesh Chandra Gaur, Confederation of Community Based Organizations of India, New Delhi

I would like to say that our children is the future our country. So it is vary necessary to give attention towards the children. In my opinion we should give our country's children a good Education system and good Health system not even in cities but in rural areas also.

The big problem is that all Government plans have not reached up-to mark. Nationally sponsored schemes are national specific only.

I want to give some examples from Chhattisgarh State in our 11th Five Years Plan while the Central Government approved 64000 Anganwadis, the state government opened only 35000 Anganwadis.

Rate of malnutrition is 47% (7% serious malnutrition) among children of 0-3 age group. Health workers in rural areas are not given any incentive. There is a provision for jhulaghar/balwadi in the workplace under NAREGA but these are not provided. The Central government has provided the mother-child help scheme but the state government has not introduced the scheme.

The number of schools, teachers and children in schools has increased, but the quality of the education is poor.

Here I give you only a one state example of our country. In India many others states are facing the same or some more problems.

I would like to recommend some suggestion to improve the situation:

The State planning boards are to be strengthened in order to make it an effective body to play a proactive role in the implementation of the Plan at the state level.
There should be focus on basic services such as education, skill development and health services for children.
The government should provide adequate Anganwadis.
Measures should be taken to tackle malnutrition and effectively implement mother and child development schemes. Health workers should be given incentives.
The quality of education provided needs to be improved.
The amount spent on mid may meals should be increased.
The Govt. should be work on GDP Plan in which public spending in education to 6% of GDP with at least half this mount being spent on primary and secondary sector. Public spending on health to at least 2-3% on GDP over the next five years with focus on primary health care.
There shall be a Child Welfare Committee in every district, which shall be constituted by the State Government through a notification in the Official Gazette.

Mahendra K Mishra, Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority, Bhubaneswar

Millennium Development Goal 2007 was for ECCE. District Primary Education Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan and National programme of Education for Girls (NPEGEL) in India have also initiated ECCE as the first independent educational programme for the children of 3- 6 age group.

Anganwadi centers look after six aspects out of which ECCE in the bottom. It means, whether it is primary education or Anganwadi management, our system offer a good and visible physical access and there ends the story. In primary education and ECCE quality of education with respect to mental development of the children is neglected and there is a serious lack of resources and resource persons in the state systems. It is sure that the policy and provision should be supportive to the ECE to ensure better result in primary education, but the intellectual side of ECE which is , I suppose more critical in ECE is not visible in our system.

It is necessary to prepare the states and the villages and the intermediate field functionaries on the basic pedagogy of ECE also the diversities of culture and language that determine the mental development of the children.

Community as a source of child rearing is another aspect of child education. There is no such community with out having a system of child rearing and child learning. Parents have sufficient knowledge to rear their children and look after their well being. Their thought and action that is found in their different activities which is in favor of their children should be clubbed with the ECE provided by the ECE teacher. ECE is a critical knowledge that has been neglected since last 30 years since its inception and now there is an emerging trend to nourish the intellectual side of young children in addition to their health and other development.

We must hope that parents who have been neglected as a part of the process should also be involved and our ECE curriculum designers should know what are the critical and family resources that help them to construct a culturally appropriate curriculum and learning materials than, teaching them on reading and writing alphabets and numbers. Rather play, stories, and songs and pictures should be the prime objective of the young children for better physical, intellectual and emotional and social development.

Geeta Menon, CARE India, New Delhi

Thanks for initiating this much needed debate on ECCD and the Rights of children in the age group 0 to 6. Please find my comments to the very pertinent issues raised by Prof. Vineta Kaul, below:

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?

Ideally it is the right of every child, from 0 to 6 years of age to have a stimulating, healthy and enabling environment. Even if a daunting task steps need to be taken in that direction through appropriate policies and programs. The government needs to adopt a two pronged approach, family based and centre based. It should develop policies that enable families, especially the marginalized families, provide nutrition and early stimulation to children. This can be done either through new policies and programs that ensure adequate food for mothers and children and education on early child care for caretakers. However more appropriate would be to expand the scope of current policies and programs, like ICDS, PDS, SSA or even NREGA. The first step however is to develop a comprehensive strategy for 0 to 6 year olds, this needs to be followed by identifying strategies ( or vehicles) for implementation this could be formulation of new schemes or expansion of current schemes . Integration of elements in existing schemes should be backed by appropriate plans and resources, the temptation of loading additional elements without appropriate monetary support should be avoided with vigilance.

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?

As said earlier it is possible to reach a comprehensive package to 0 to 6 year olds only through diverse ways and there is a need to explore them. It is however apparent that it will have a combination of home based and centre based approach. The ICDS Anganwadi would still be a good option of reaching pre-school education and nutrition to the 3 to 6 year olds. The need is to establish and ensure quality standards for the pre-school component and nutrition. The current monitoring systems within ICDS could be reviewed and strengthened. There is also a need to develop different kind of AW models for the urban poor.

It will be a challenge to monitor holistic ECCE interventions, especially if these are implemented through different challenges. One way, if resources allow would be to develop a cadre of ' Social Worker' ( could be called anything else) but the key work of the Social worker would be enable communities plan and implement strategies for rights of 0 to 6 year olds. The social worker becomes the nodal person to support and monitor inclusion of child rights activities in different programs and schemes.

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

I feel that there should be a separate act for the right to education

Kalyan Dangar, Cohesion Foundation, Gujarat

A large number of children from marginalized communities do not have access to these services. The low outreach is reflected in the poor indicators at the primary school level. The dropout rate for children classes I to IV for 1998 -1999 for Gujarat state is reported to be 25.75% (22.52% for boys and 33.98% for girls). An analysis of the data on children dropping out of school at different levels of schooling i.e., primary, middle and secondary indicates that children from poorer sections of society drop out in the early stages of education, while those from better-off sections drop out at later stages. Of these children, almost one-third dropped out on account of economic considerations, such as compulsions to work for wages or looking after siblings. Early child development interventions can help reduce societal inequalities rooted in poverty by helping to provide young children from disadvantaged backgrounds with a more equitable start in life and a foundation for further growth, this is especially important for those living in rural and urban marginal areas.

Class and caste variations to a large extent determine the quality of childcare the young child receives in the family. The quality of childcare in disadvantaged families is severely affected due to economic poverty, illiteracy, and lack of awareness and skills on early childcare. The deprivation is observed directly in the developmental status of the child, inclusive of health, social development and the child's ability to adjust and achieve in pre-school and formal schools. An analysis of the Early Childhood Development (ECD) scenario indicates that the key problems of reaching quality inputs to the children are:

Limited understanding of issues related to early childhood and its requirements by key players at home, at the pre-school, in the formal schools and in the community
Lack of inter linkages amongst service providers and community for an integrated agenda.
Lack of informed demand from families/community for appropriate programs
Although primary schools exist in every village the average number of classrooms is inadequate (2.6 per village) and the teacher-student ration is high at 1:40
Concept of Quality Education for the children in Early Childhood Development (ECD) is very important. Formal education is provided to them but how to improve the system of education and to make it more qualitative in terms of over all growth of the child is important aspect.
To consider the issues of Health and Nutrition is also important for the child's development in this stage. It should be integrated in ECD.
For primary education there are mechanisms through which it is monitored and evaluated like different committees such as Village Education Committee (VEC). While in ECD there is no such mechanism to monitor and evaluate its work. Hence there should be some kind of village level, block level, district level and stat level mechanisms for the same.

Zakiya Kurrien, Centre For Learning Resources, Pune

In the interests of advocating for and promoting the young child's right to optimal development, Venita Kaul of CECED has sought our views on some fundamentally important questions. She has understandably taken for granted that for the entire education community, both in and outside government – it is sufficient to state that ECED is crucial to providing "a sound foundation for life", and move on to entitlement issues. It is my submission, however, that the ECED advocacy efforts on the part of several organizations and individuals have not been influential in the matter of the 86^th Constitutional Amendment and the Right to Education Act precisely because there are members of our educational community who have not lent their might to the effort. The reason for this lack of participation could be that the empirical evidence related to early human development has not been shared in any detail. I would therefore like to first summarize here the salient findings of global research in the neurosciences and human development that make the inclusion of the 0-6 age group imperative in any formulation of the fundamental right to education and development. These findings are as follows:

that half of all mental development potential (not half of all mental development) is reached by age 4, and that the early environment greatly influences brain function.
that physical growth retardation due to malnutrition is associated with delayed mental and psychomotor development
that growth deficits in poor children, due to malnutrition and / or faulty feeding practices, are generally not recouped
that ECCD interventions which combine nutrition supplementation and psychosocial stimulation for infants have a greater impact on both physical growth and psychological development.
that interventions during children's first 3 years (including prenatal care) are more likely to forestall deficits in psychosocial development.
that sound preschool education enables children from disadvantaged backgrounds to get an equal start at primary school entry (to their middle class counterparts) in the multiple domains that constitute readiness for formal schooling.

I have the following responses to the questions raised by Venita:

Early Childhood Education (ECE) for the 3-5 years age group : Does it need separate legislation? Should it be centre-based?

As Venita has rightly pointed out, the first step will have to be a re-amendment of the 86^th Constitutional Amendment, Article 21A. In the case of ECE, separate legislation is not required. The RTE Act can be suitably amended to include ECE for the age group 3-5 years. The RTE Act has taken several years to be "born". For the right to ECE to become justifiable, we do not need a further lengthy wait that a totally new act would entail.

ECE is a professional field in itself, with a theoretical base that incorporates understandings of developmentally appropriate curriculum, pedagogy and materials. Hence centre-based provision is more appropriate than including it as merely part of a "stimulating, healthy and enabling environment". Centre-based provision will also dove-tail with the overall implementation of the RTE Act. (As pointed out by other respondents, in our diverse cultural settings, decentralized and flexible models will apply). Whether the nodal Ministry for the implementation of the Right to ECE remains the Ministry of Women and Child Development (the channel being ICDS anganwadis), or whether it shifts to the MHRD (balwadis) is an important but secondary issue. As regards issues of quality, major reforms will be needed within the ICDS; Anjela Taneja's response has already outlined some of these non-negotiable reforms. In the case of MHRD taking the responsibility for the implementation of the Right to ECE, similar issues of teacher provision, adequate and appropriate training, etc. will apply. Then there are important issues of registration and licensing in the private sector.

0-6 year's age group

Legislation for the Right to Food is in place. However, as the RTE Act cannot incorporate the right to health for the 3-5 years age group, a separate act is required guaranteeing health care for the age group 0-6 years, along with the delivery of home-based caregiver education related to reproductive health, child health, nutrition and psychosocial stimulation of infants and toddlers. Appropriate feeding practices and health-seeking behaviours for the youngest children depend on the knowledge of caregivers within families. Psychosocial development of the 0-3 age group is greatly dependent on early caregiver-child interaction, which in turn is dependent on the awareness levels of parents and other caregivers. Hence home-based family education on holistic child care must be included in the formulation of the separate act, given the overwhelming evidence that interventions during children's first 3 years can forestall both growth and cognitive deficits.

Alaknanda Sanap, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi

My comments on the queries raised:

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.

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

Jigisha Shastri, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara

It is not a debatable issue that all children from birth to eight, irrespective of where they are, should have a right to stimulating, healthy and enabling environment. By now, we have enough evidence to suggest how important the early years are. It's long term financial gains to a country are also proven. The very interesting brain development research too reinforces this.

It's implementation is definitely challenging in such a diverse context as ours. Lot of States are developing tracking mechanism for monitoring children's health and education. We should also advocate for including growth and development indicators.

Whether coming from the Government or public funds, the health, education and other services will have to be strengthened. It will also be essential to reach out to parents at the community level. The anganwadi workers in the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) program are so over burdened with multiple roles that we would have to think beyond that and come up with other solutions. Maybe identify child development community workers who liaison with primary health care systems, education systems and homes.

In a diverse context as ours, we should also be thinking about (though it has begun) innovative ways of reaching out to children and not just depend on center based programs. No program for children should ignore the family and community. Only if it is embedded in children's own context, taking the families and communities along, will it succeed. Quality standards should be defined and used. There should be a strong monitoring system to ensure that these standards are met. Some form of licensing for existing and new ECCE programs is also a must.

We have been talking about these issues in almost all ECCE forums. Maybe we also need to take this issue to the public as well as include other professionals in our advocacy movement. It is so heartening to note that we have begun this debate with Dr. Kaul's initiative. I hope too that we all together come up with some action plans.

Hemantha Kumar Pamarthy, Hand in Hand Micro Finance Limited, Chennai

I would like to share my views on the following questions raised by Venita Kaul

The Right to Education should, like other important rights, be fundamental. In my opinion this right should be vested with every citizen of the country, no matter where they are located, from birth to death and thus age limits may not be brought into any purview at all.

The government should ensure that, be it through public sources or private, the Right to Education is fulfilled, without fail and without any excuse, whatsoever. The government, through required rules, legislations, ordnances - whatever are applicable, should ensure availability of education to all the citizens, irrespective of location, caste, religion, gender and so on.

When all citizens, irrespective of age and location, are to be covered by the Right to Education, the "3-6 year old" may not be applicable in that case. However, taking into consideration the wide variations in IQ and quality of education, the government should be in a position to rank all the educational institutions as per norms prescribed / to be prescribed and match the students with appropriate institutions. Even the private schools should be monitored on this aspect, if can not be totally controlled.

With some necessary amendments, the present existing RTE Act should be in a position to accommodate these factors. Again is it not time to think of handling all the educational affairs by one ministry? Or at the least both can work in harmony to achieve results?

Rama Kant Rai , National Coalition for Education, New Delhi

The right of children to "Early Childhood Care" and "Education" means all the rights as enshrined in Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) including right of survival development, participation and protection. And this is an obligation of state. In no case it should be in different fragments like 3 to 6 or 0 to 3. This should be a right for all the children 0 to 6 in one stretch.

This should be strictly with the Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act and the responsibility should remain with Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). However Ministry of Women and Child Development (WCD) should work with MHRD as nodal ministry. Otherwise there would be a great hassle to make inter ministerial coordination.

The government must ensure that adequate resources are made available from government sources. In no case private public partnership should come to dilute this issue as it happened in last decades. Government should take this responsibility by making it a justiciable right with the Right to Education Act, without fail and without any excuse.

The government, through required rules, legislations, ordnances - whatever are applicable, should ensure availability of care and education to all children irrespective of location, caste, religion, gender and so on

The very concept of centre based care and protection should never be promoted even in discussions.

Suman Swarup, Independent Consultant, New Delhi

Children in the age group of 0 to 6 have been treated as a distinct group, while within this group the needs of children between 0 to 3 and 3 to 6 are different. In my view the Right to Education should have covered children in the age group of 4 to 14 and primary schools should be responsible for pre school education of children aged 4 and above. In urban areas private schools already admit children at the age of 4 and it is evident that this pattern is acceptable to parents too.

For children in the age group of 0 to 4, the existing Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme should be strengthened and the anganwadis converted and upgraded to modern day care centers for providing healthcare, nutrition and a safe and happy environment for the children .The staff should be qualified and well trained so that professional and sensitive handling of infants away from home is possible. Such day care centres will be a great boon for working mothers who have to rely on relatives, friends or illiterate domestic help. A legislation is not called for if such well run centers are established by the government and the private sector. Parents will be more than willing to pay for such care if such day care centers are set up. For poorer parents the cost could be subsidized.

Anubha Rajesh, ICF International, New Delhi

Keeping in mind the significance of critical periods in the early years, it is pertinent that due recognition be given to the age group from birth to 6 years and they get included under the protective umbrella of the government through a legitimate Act. Hence, to state that I am strongly in agreement with the issues put forward by ECCE community and would like to add a few thoughts at my end.

Emphasizing the life cycle approach - It has been heartening to observe the life-cycle approach of the ICDS flagship programme of the government. Though the reach of the programme is limited due to many factors, the significance of including the community, adolescent girls, pregnant women and lactating mothers does highlight the importance of development in different stages of life. The holistic approach in investing on human resources for enhanced economic returns needs to focus and suggest interventions at each stage, to ensure a seamless, optimal and improved development in human development indices.

Addressing the dynamic needs of the society – Child care, though observed as a family responsibility, construed to the women, requires a look from the fresh eyes. Viewing the current changes in the labor market, with more and more women joining the workforce and diluting family structures it is important to address the rising needs of child care provisions. Understanding the importance of the early years, it becomes more and more crucial to generate quality child care provisions that are able to provide sensitive and trained caregivers for the early years.

Advocacy and mobilization – An integral component to success of any programme needs to raise awareness on the significance of early childhood care and development among the key stakeholders. The impact created by the ECD initiatives in Bangladesh sound the need for capacity building among parents, the government and partner agencies inclusive of all who are connected to early childhood care and education. This will facilitate parents as immediate consumers to understand, demand and make informed choices. At the same time it may also address the glaring inequalities of the social sector by needful and justified budget allocations and ensuring that the allocated amounts are utilized purposefully and completely.

To conclude, I feel that we all need to come together and advocate the cause of early education to ensure our children are sure of a smart beginning and a promising future.

Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Freelance Consultant for Educational Institutes, New Delhi

I am worried about the future of Indian Kids (3-6years) as in most of play, Kindergarten, Montessori schools the situation is not good.

Schools are trying to make kid/toddlers a super human being at the age of 3-6, instilling as much as information they gathered from the internet about this age group.
Skill needed to handle the children of this group is lacking in teachers.
Teacher training curriculum is obsolete for ECCE. The way teacher engage with these young children is just not appropriate. There are hardly suitable activities with which children could engage and feel active. The problem is with the education of children themselves.
Learning environment does not match with learners.
Citizens/parents involvement is nil in the schools (except Parent Teacher Meetings, patens don't get involved in the activities of centers)
Measurement of learning process needs improvement.
Parents' orientation is needed (till now they are simply financial providers and don't engage beyond that.)

What it requires, is a complete overhaul of the system. The training of teachers' should be of the nature which enables them to elicit participation of young children. There should be interaction between parents' and teachers' on regular intervals. Parents should also engage with children once they come back from the school and make sure that their learning is strengthened in multiple ways. A Robust monitoring system in Schools is also a must.

I feel the improvement in all the above would be required to change the scenario of Early Child hood Care and Education.

Vrinda Datta, Tata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai

There is a need to focus on children of 5-6 years with a school readiness program which should come under the Right to Education.
Children up to five years can come under Ministry of women and child development where right to development (optimal) is addressed. The right to development has to be realized by providing supportive systems to parents who are primarily responsible for young children. The government provides support systems through parent education, services like group care, and enabling family environment by providing food security, livelihoods etc.
The role of government can be:

 To define, the roles of government, Ngo and private sector.

 To create quality standards for all programs across all sectors

 To create a monitoring body/accreditation system involving professionals, advocacy groups and professional associations and networks

 To create a curriculum framework for the 5-6 years olds.

Shubhi Sachdeva, Ambedkar University, New Delhi

When we talk about a healthy, sound environment for children, we cannot make it age specific. It's not as if one age group requires a stimulating environment while the others can make do with minimum stimulation. We need to look at all domains of development and all age groups. Also, research has shown that early brain development is crucial in determining later development too. So we cannot ignore the age group of 0-3 years.

Talking about taking steps to ensure this, I believe a dialog at a large scale would be required, between various stakeholders and beneficiaries from all the sectors in order to ensure rights to all children. As it is the multiplicity of ministries and departments within the ministries creates a lot of problems and serves as an excuse for not acting. Therefore, rethinking needs to be done regarding assigning departments and all things pertaining to children need to be looked at in a holistic manner and ministries should act as partners in it in literal terms.

Sameen Almas, Ambedkar University, Delhi

My views: Since childhood is not restricted to a classroom or a preschool setting and not every child has the privilege of being enrolled in one, it is imperative that the society should be enabled to provide for the needs of the child in order to maintain the holistic development of each of its children. There should be provision for every child's needs- keeping in mind the different needs of children coming from different s-e-s and also their circumstances viz., a child with special needs, girl child and so on. This care has to be ensured right from birth and for every child. A preschool centre is just an institution built with that objective. However, the onus is on the society and the government system to implement this. A well-defined system may be in place, however, if the fuel is amiss, everything goes to waste. Just like any other good policy, it is important that the involvement of the community be kept to a maximum and there be a sense of ownership among the people. The government can help in providing the infrastructure and the materials. The educator however should be chosen from among the community and should have some minimal eligibility criteria that marks him/her competent to deal with children effectively. The stress instead of being on maintaining registers and such activities should be on the quality of education imparted. Also, parents and community members should be encouraged to participate and maximally utilize the benefits of the programme for their children.

My views: First and foremost, the context of the child has to be taken into account. If ensuring accessibility for children is what is sought, different forms of advocacy and mobilization may be necessary. Moreover, efforts should be made to contextualize the programme in such a manner that the message gets sent across to the parents, and the classroom transaction must be in a way that can be easily grasped by the child. For this again, the teacher can use innovative and ingenious pedagogical methods to teach concepts to children.

To express my views on the second part of the question, I would say that priority must be given to address the four basic needs of children: survival, development, protection and participation. This needs to be ensured by way of ensuring that all children get fully immunized, their nutrition needs are met, their need for care and affection is fulfilled. Monitoring mechanisms may vary by engaging the community leaders and volunteers and providing them training to deal with children effectively. There should be regular supervision by professionals from the fields of child development and nutrition.

My views: This being a subject of debate, I feel that there should be a separate act for 0-6 age group. Including it within the Right to Education Act will mean overburdening young children. Moreover, education for children in this category differs significantly from the methodology adopted for educating the older children in the country. Keeping that in mind, young children in a separate category with separate needs and ways to address them will be more useful than trying to merge it within the existing Act. The charge should be in the hands of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and access to services must be fought for vehemently.

Sunil Batra, Shikshantar, Gurgaon

Thank you Venita for articulating the urgent and critical need of children not accounted for in the new Right to Education Act. The issues and questions you have raised require serious deliberation on the part of academics, educators, child psychologists, parents, legal experts and policy makers. There is no doubt that the rights of young children from birth onwards need to be made secure and deliverable. Our notions of what is 'secure and deliverable' are presently so rudimentary that we need intense and sustained dialoguing to define these terms in the context of children between 0 and 6 years of age. The need is equally desperate for 6 and beyond because there is so little we know about the delivery of child-friendly education.

From the time a child is born till she becomes an 'independent adult' why must her care and education in society be relegated to different ministries? For one, we need convergence of this world-view in terms of vision and programme development, and policy making.

Assuming we are able to get the right established in the not so distant future, issues of government commitment, public provisions, interpretations and readiness for quality, monitoring etc. will need tremendous detailing.

I suggest we start with deliberating on finding out what could be speedier ways of establishing the rights of children between 0 to 5 and 15-18 years of age. Do you think calling for a few regional consultations with a fair amount of preparation will help?

Geeta Verma, CARE India, New Delhi

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.

Padmini, Child Rights Trust, Bangalore

I feel that a centre-based approach alone will not do, as most children under three cannot be reached on a day-to-day basis that way. Their health and growth check-ups can be managed if done systematically and diligently by trained Anganwadi/Balwadi workers and Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANM)/ Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHAs), but the daily care, stimulation, nutritional and hygiene needs is in the hands of the mother and other family care-givers [unless part of the time, the child is in a crèche].

Hence, a major effort is needed to inculcate in parents and other family caregivers, a full understanding and internalization of good parenting practices that will help the infant and young child under three develop in a holistic manner. Given that the key to bringing out the full potential of a child is to focus on this age group, it is self-defeating to ignore this aspect of child development. The opportunity cost of not attending to it is much higher than the cost of providing for it. I would like to cite the action research study done some years back in a Bangalore slum that clearly showed the Development Quotient of the children [under three] who were in the project clearly improve with the holistic care that was provided at home and by community workers under the overall supervision of health and development personnel [Mundkur et al, 5Cs: The Holistic Development of the Young Child, Child Rights Trust, 2006]

IEC in innovative ways to convince parents to follow good parenting practices is one key approach. In the case of the young child, 'Parenting' will cover all these aspects and be a step-by-step guide for adhering to good practices. There are both government and NGO experiences and guidelines, training materials on these approaches that can be used on a wider, sustained scale.

Another need is to ensure that the family has food, housing and health security. Without these basics, at least to a partial extent, it is futile to expect the family to pay attention to less tangible aspects of child development.

A third is for government to strengthen home visits by Anganwadi Worker (AWWs), Auxiliary Nurse Midwives, and Accredited Social Health Activists for education of the family on the correct strategies, remedial action if the child's development is faltering, and learning in turn from innovative approaches where found. Government should solicit the collaboration of NGOs for these and for IEC.

Several good practices exist in the country and these must be built upon, using the Strategies for Children under six as a guide.

Crèche workers and Anganwadi Workers must also be fully trained in catering to the under three child. The number of workers and functioning centers must be proportional to the number of children in the age group 0-6.

Private institutions have mushroomed in urban areas and even in some larger rural centers and are sometimes not run on lines that are beneficial to the child. There should be standard protocols, minimum standards, and regulations [licensing, supervision/monitoring] preferably by joint Government / NGO representatives of all institutions, private and govt.

All these issues may become buried even if the RTE act is amended to cover children below six, and the emphasis may be only on 'education' rather than the holistic development, i.e., the care, stimulation, health, hygiene and nutrition of the young child. Hence a separate act, that includes revision of ICDS and Crèche policies and strategies, is needed for this age group.

This Act should be for ECCD and not just ECCE as the latter term zeroes in the education emphasis rather than the development one, and the difference is crucially important.

Parul Taneja, National Council of Education Research and Training, New Delhi

Thank you for giving us opportunity to share our views on the issue. It is sad that right to education bill excluded 0-6 year's age group.

I feel that it is the right of every child to a stimulating, healthy and enabling environment, from birth to 6 years no matter where they are located.

The government's commitment and public provisions would define this right operationally by first including 0-6 in the right to education act and secondly by focusing on implementation part and later evaluating/monitoring it.
It should be part of the Right to Education Act, but there needs to be one Ministry designated which would looks into holistic needs of the children from conception to 18 years. Moreover, it should be inclusive in nature.

Radhika Herzberger, Rishi Valley Education Centre, Andhra Pradesh

Designing schools to function as resource centers for the village in which they are located is an excellent way of addressing the issues raised by Vinita Kaul. My observations here are based on the experience of one-room schools located in one of the drought districts of Rayalseema in Andhra Pradesh, and may not be relevant to urban situations. At least half of India continues to live in its villages, so my suggestions may have some bearing on the debate.

If elementary schools, balwadis, and adult education programmes are located within grounds that have fruit bearing trees and medicinal plants, reciprocal bonds are created between the school and the community, which facilitate good education besides taking care of the needs of children of all ages. If the school grounds are additionally used for conserving local biodiversity, and conducting adult education programmes based on local cultural expressions, we might even be able to bring local culture into classrooms and help preserve our natural and traditional heritage; educational institutions can sow the seeds of a village commons.

If constructivism is goal set by educationists in India today, the design I have sketched above would help create a pluralistic educational system that takes account of local culture.

K.Lakshmi, Andhra Mahila Sabha, Hyderabad

Every child should be ensured the right to a stimulating healthy and enabling environment and cannot be discriminated on any ground. Without this support , right to education provided after 6 years or even at the age of 3 wouldn't compensate for the loses already suffered .Hence it becomes obligatory on the part of the state to ensure needed support for development right from birth.

For 3 to 6 years group- it is the most vulnerable group undergoing all sorts of experiments .This is the stage where quality can be ensured only through proper regulation.

ECE (3 to 6 yrs.) should be part of Right to Education act, so that continuum is ensured in the education ladder.

Asha Singh, Lady Irwin College, New Delhi

My response to the questions raised by Ms. Venita Kaul is as follows:

Response: Centre based programmes always seem more useful; however, it should be ensured that children are in a 'joyful" environment getting appropriate stimulation. Sometimes it is not possible to get to a centre. Efforts must be made to create centers for which GO and NGO have to be alert. Training of the personnel is very important that is orienting to the special characteristics of childhood

Response: Answer to this is captured in the above response. The idea of a centre for every 1000 population should be dealt with in all earnestness. NGO's should receive encouragement with moderate monitoring.

Response: Yes, definitely. I firmly believe that the design for 0-6 being separated has larger benefits. Firstly being in a WCD ministry is a blessing. The 0-6 group will not be in anonymity and can get more focused attention. I prefer this age to be separate from the larger population. Infact, as a translation to action I would suggest all children till 8 years to be in small "feeder schools" where they are nourished in an all round manner in personalized spaces to enter the precincts of large schools as "confident individuals"

Smitha Kalyani, Association for India's Development, Chennai

Following are some of the comments that we would like to share with you.

Response: A stimulating, health and enabling environment for all children in 0-6 years of age should undoubtedly be the right of every child. Ensuring this right in a country like ours with diverse socio-economic levels, educational backgrounds of parents, geographical diversity would mean working at several levels and adopting a multi-pronged approach with emphasis on local solutions versus one national "solution". This holistic approach, while desirable, will not add value if it is not implemented well and monitored, but remains just in spirit.

To ensure this, the Government must first guarantee a minimum commitment to delivering good quality ECE for all 3-6 year children. School readiness skills for all children entering primary school should be ensured and tracked.

While this can be delivered through a center-based approach, it cannot function separate from the home environment of the child. There must be mechanisms in place to link the ECD center with the parents and local communities to ensure that a stimulating environment is provided to all children from birth to 6 years. Such linkages should be ensured by monitoring of community/parents meetings with the ECD teacher/care-giver, parents' involvement in ECD centre activities, measurement of health and nutrition status of all 0-6 year children etc.

Several studies acknowledge that ECE has long term impacts on enrolment, retention and successful attainment in primary school. Children without adequate pre-school inputs start school with a disadvantage that could cause them to fall further behind as they move through primary school. Ensuring this first foundational step places them in a better and rightful position to acquire their full potential.

Response: In a centre based approach for ECE for 3-6 year olds, health (supplementary nutrition, immunization, heath checkups) of all children in 0-6 age group must be ensured as heath and well-being have a lot of implications for education, especially for smaller children.

The following are required to ensure good quality ECE for all children:

Mini-Anganwadis are being established to ensure access. These must be converted to full fledged centers.
Currently Anganwadi workers cater to a large number of children – 40-50 children per centre in some places. Establishing more centers in such places will ensure access to all children,
Recruiting additional Anganwadi worker, as per Planning commission recommendation and NCERT, in each centre to focus exclusively on ECE will ease the workload of current Anganwadi workers and help in better quality of all services.
Access without adequate quality of delivery will again serve to ensure the rights of the child only in spirit.
Setting clear expected outcomes and focuses both in health and education and helping Anganwadi workers example Ensuring school readiness of all 5 year old children etc. This needs to be measured and corrective actions taken on an on-going basis.
Regular and more training and skill up gradation of Anganwadi workers on child development and ECE outcomes is very essential.
Adequate allocation and spend on learning materials for Anganwadi centers is a must to ensure good quality ECE.

Response: From a child's educational point of view, early childhood education and school education are key and integral aspects to development and cannot be de-linked. The Right to Education act must include all children less than 6 years of age as well.

S. Anandalakshmy, Independent Consultant, Chennai

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

Vimala Ramachandran, Educational Research Unit, New Delhi

As always, Anandalakshmy's note is informative as well as realistic. One of the biggest challenges we face today is to plan - keeping the real situation in view - and not what is "supposed to be on the ground".

For over ten years now many researchers, advocates and practitioners have argued that we need different strategies for children up to 3 years and then a different one for 3-6 years. Within the first three years we need to do a lot at home - through home based care, home based education of care givers (mothers, fathers and other family members). Despite compelling evidence and compelling arguments we have not been able to overhaul the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme to specifically address the needs of the two distinct groups of children.

I think we need to step up visible political reporting / lobbying through existing evidence that we have. Is it possible to pool the evidence together and work out a strategy to bring the issues to the fore in the media - television and print, to reach out to Members of Parliament (especially the young brigade), our officials' in-charge of Ministry of Women and Child Development (WCD)?

Mahima Mitra , University of Oxford, United Kingdom

I have been following the discussion so far and would like to place forth my views.

The right to development, care and education should be a fundamental right of all children between 0-6. Since development occurs along a continuum, with each stage having its own specific needs, it does not make sense to recognize one age interval or multiple age intervals with gaps in between that nobody accounts for. This is especially important, because our policy implementation processes and personnel suffer from problems of shirking responsibility, passing the buck and dwindling accountability. In fact, if early childhood does set out to receive the kind of attention it duly deserves, the 0 to 6 should ideally be redefined as: from -9 (months) to +6 years i.e. should also include the prenatal period.
It should not be limited to centre based learning and should encompass multiple models. Much has already been said about this and I agree with all of it.
There should be a separate act for this age group, and Id like to reiterate the need for this based on the specific needs of the age group, the integrated nature of development of children at this age as well as the existence of different nodal ministries for the two.
What could the mechanisms be to ensure that every child right to ECCE is fulfilled? Ideally, there could be many. One could look at the possibility of the following:

 Shifting focus, redefining focus or, simply placing focus on the child as the central concern of policy (making/implementing). Our concern needs to be stable at present it is a constantly shifting concern with, either, infrastructure development, or themes within child development (say, health morbidity, mortality; or, nutrition food programmes, food quality; or preventive measures vaccinations and immunizations), or simply the concern with the numbers how many anganwadis, how many calories, how much space etc. with such spurts of shifting foci one tends to lose track of the child that is actually our primary concern.

 Making use of technological advancements for monitoring and ensuring every child's access to ECCE. If every child can be mapped and accounted for, it is possible to ensure access. Building an electronic database of all children (and citizens, eventually) is really the need of the hour. Although a seemingly mammoth task, once done, this can be a superbly useful resource to have for mapping the scale of a problem, for identifying focus areas and therefore nature of interventions, as well as for actually monitory and evaluating, as well as tracing the impact of any interventions. The Delhi State Government has come up with the concept of Mission Convergence, and they are manually collecting data from poor families and then utilizing it for identification, distribution and mapping of benefits across the population. Large numbers of beneficiaries and multiple models of provision call for the incorporation of such technologies in the policy system.

 Intense research in the field of Early Childhood Development, reducing the dependence on Western models and instead using them as examples for policy transfer but not models for policy replication in India. We need think tanks and collaborations between the government and academic institutions to carry out research to fill the gaps and provide the missing links in understanding the policy context of our country. Such collaborative efforts could also, be especially useful for putting organized and formal monitoring mechanisms in place.

 Not only should there be a separate act for this age group, but also an overarching ECEC policy that should provide the normative framework for existing and future provisions and schemes. We must not forget that even though we may have strong ECEC provisions and schemes from the government, we do need a central Early Childhood Policy that lays down the essentials and is a referral point for future policy. Many members have suggested that the responsibility of the same can go with the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and I propose the formal of an ECEC Cell within the MWCD that holds the responsibility of this age group.

 Reforms in the existing provisions should include, first and foremost, the licensing of all children's centres whether they be preschools, day-cares, crèches, nurseries, or after-school care centres. Clear guidelines should be established with the basic minimums clearly spelt out.

 Also, there is the need for a partnership between parents as consumers and the government as providers. Concerted efforts should be directed towards creating awareness among parents among concepts such as ECEC, the importance of the early years and the rights of children and parents to demand care and education for this age group. This point has already been raised by Dr. Anubha Rajesh when she mentions capacity building among parents as a crucial means for ensuring accountability.

 What is also crucial to the success of any public policy is the development of a critical citizenry and this should be encouraged not only at the level of parents i.e. by making them more aware, but should also form a critical component of the curriculum at all stages of education.

Finally, I want to bring back attention to the response by Anjela Taneja early on in the thread where she mentions crèches. ECCE in our country is defined broadly in terms of child development. The form it usually takes is that of the ICDS programme. I think there is need to broaden our understanding of ECEC it has two parts to it i.e. child development, but also child care (security, protection). Concepts such as maternity leaves, child benefits, crèches and daycares go hand in hand with the concept of ECEC. And this is especially true of India with its burgeoning informal economy and high female labour participation in the unrecognized/informal sector, with enough evidence of low-paid and part-time work, and no support mechanisms or safety nets. ECEC is also more than the ICDS it is also the Rajiv Gandhi National Crèche Scheme, it is also the National Maternity Benefits Scheme (now part of Janani Suraksha Yojana) and there is need to conceptualise and visualise ECEC as a whole comprised of all of these parts (among others), not just the ICDS.

Mina Swaminathan, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai

The Constitution of India (1950) clearly lays down in Art. 45 of the Directive Principles that " every child shall have the right to education up to the age of 14." Using the language of their time, the architects of the document called it "education", which was then, especially under the influence of Gandhi, Tagore, Gijubhai Badheka, Zakir Husain, Maria Montessori and others, conceived of in very broad terms. Today, we might call it "holistic growth, development and education" but this is clearly what the founding fathers had in mind, as can be seen from other expressions in the document. Cautiously, though the upper limit was defined as age 14, the lower limit was not specified The Jomtien Declaration and the accompanying UNESCO document Learning for Life stated that learning begins at birth. However, since there is evidence that development starts from the moment of conception, and also that human intervention is possible and evident from that time, present day thinkers prefer to define the period of early childhood as starting from conception . Most developmental theorists would place the upper limit at eight, rather than six, which is arbitrary, being linked with the traditional age of entry into formal school education. Without going further into the debate, we can accept conception to six years of age as the period of life which can be called Early Childhood.

The right here to be protected is for all-round care, protection and development which will ensure holistic growth, development and education. Since there are several sub – stages even within this period, ( for example, pre-natal, birth to two years, two to four years, four to six years and six to eight years.) different strategies and programmes will be needed at each stage, responding to the needs and abilities at each stage. Care and support for development and education will have to be in diverse contexts, some centre-based, others based in the family or substitute family, with some provided through services of a periodic type, as in the case of immunization. A centre-based programme for 3-6 year olds is necessary, but obviously cannot meet all needs. No single programme or strategy will be adequate for all, nor can any one rule be laid down at this stage.

The table in the elaborate response of mine, gives a rough indication of the kind of programmes and services required on the basis of the needs of the young child during each of the sub-stages. In the same way, the table in Appendix 1, (also is part of the elaborate response) begins with rights of the young child at each stage and goes on to indicate the gaps in present legal provisions for children below six.

However, a piecemeal approach, merely trying to plug holes, should not be taken at this stage, particularly in view of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment which removes children below six from the purview of the right to education. Instead, an overarching enabling legislation on the rights of children below six is required, as indicated above. Within that framework, the various strategies and programmes can be worked out for each sub-stage. There are a sufficient number of documents developed at different times by different groups within the country to make this possible, and field examples are plentiful We are not working in a vacuum, and can draw on recent history.

Keeping the purpose already described in mind, as well as past history, and the loopholes, flaws and weaknesses in the present Right to Education Act, it would be desirable not to keep the Rights of Young Children Act ( however titled) Act with the Ministry of Education, but with the Ministry of Children( if such is being considered) or with the present Ministry of Women and Child Development. Clubbing women and children together has both advantages and disadvantages, and the need for separate Ministries has frequently been discussed.

In theory, it would be desirable to have the two in close conjunction and under the same roof. From the point of view of the child, this is because many of the needs of the child, especially in the fetal and infant period, have to be met through the mother ( for example, nutrition during the fetal stage, and protection from selective abortion and other kinds of discrimination) At the same time, some of the strategies for developmental care, such as crèches for the below-twos and day care for the below sixes, are at the same time support services for working women with multiple burdens.

However, in practice, in India, there is no convergence between the two. For example, none of the socio-economic programmes for women's development contain even a reference, leave alone a provision, for crèches or day care; on the other hand, the ICDS, the premier vehicle for child development services in the country, consuming over 80 % of the budget of the Ministry, functions as if does not allow for women having any other activity, responsibility or work besides motherhood. A simple illustration is the fact that the admission registers document only the occupation of the father, and not that of the mother, though the majority of poor women are working for their livelihood. Perhaps this conceptual and practical gap can be bridged, or else the Ministry divided into two.

Developing the provisions of the Act into programmes for the children of the country, providing for training for workers and capacity building for the human resources, and developing mechanisms and standards for monitoring by all the concerned stakeholders raise two important issues: those of quality of programme, a crucial concern and of the nature of provisioning.

Taking the second issue first, to provide access to every child, it would be necessary to allow for multiple providers, in order to have both flexibility and reach, as only specialized agencies may be able to reach certain sectors. Hence the three sectors—public, private and not-for-profit -- would each would have an important though different role. However, all must function within the framework of the Act, and rules and guidelines made applicable to all, so that diversity is not allowed to become discrimination.

Regarding defining and then ensuring quality of programme, the major role of Government would be first in defining norms and standards with regard to all aspects of the programme, such as infrastructure, content and process, budgetary provision, equipment and materials, services, training and capacity building, and then in supporting the development of each of these, and finally in developing tools for monitoring Fortunately, there are already several tools and materials available for development of both norms and standards and instruments of monitoring

Monitoring itself can be divided among several stakeholders, such as parents and family, supervisors, academics and professionals, representatives of the community at different levels, and wings of Government at different levels. There are already plenty of tools available for monitoring not only the provision of services, but also their quality, and more and better tools can easily be developed. More stress has to be laid on monitoring by parents, community representatives, and by professionals than has so far been the case. The media can be alerted play a larger role both in monitoring as well as in creating awareness about the Act itself, and all the outcomes.

To make a start, the Solutions Exchange itself can be developed into a repository of information and documentation on the subject which would be an essential guide during the preparation and advocacy for such an Act, and later, in facing the complex problems of implementation.

Geeta Chopra, Institute of Home Economics, New Delhi

The exclusion of 0-6 age group from the Right to Education act is not just strange but even retrograde as it clearly reflects the apathy and lack of appreciation of the policy makers on the utmost importance of early years in the individual's life cycle. However, the chances of including this age group in the Right to Education act now would require many years of concerted effort and lobbying to amend this anomaly. Yet, all who are sensitive to the salience of the early years would recommend making a whole hearted effort towards this goal, or better still to carve a special niche for this age group and draw attention of all towards this age group.

When reflecting on the whether the service provision for this age group should be center based or not, my long years of working in the community has made me realize that the child care practices followed in the community are on many occasions inappropriate. I feel there is a crying need to strengthen the parenting skills of community, so advocacy of positive child care practices should go a long way in ensuring survival, growth and development needs specially of infants. The existing infrastructure of Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), being the largest child care programme in the country is not geared for the 0-3 age group. (As far as private players for the 0-3 age group is concerned, if we even look around in Delhi for good crèche facility for infants, one is horrified to realize that there are hardly any). So early years are vested in the care of families who at times are not adequately skilled. It is important that we do not take for granted the abilities of the parents to provide good infant care. I would also like to point out the 'confused' parenting is endemic even in the upper strata of society. When planning programmes and policies, let us not forget children belonging to 'rich and educated' parents.

For the 3-6 age groups, though ICDS is covering most of the country, it is not yet universalized. Lot has already been said about the quality of ECE in the ICDS programme. In cities and towns, ECE services are also offered by private players, for whom there are no monitoring mechanisms, no teacher training for early childhood educators, no clear curriculum, no guidelines on starting and managing preschools. So, I am not sure if the private preschools are actually fostering the holistic development of children. It would be worth pointing out that the network of private preschools is as large as the ICDS.

My recommendation would be

To strengthen the parent education component for parents of young children in all socio-economic strata
Develop guidelines for running preschool programmes which is nationally accredited
Teacher training and preparing early childhood educators and paying them and treating them at par with primary school teachers
The needs of this age group are unique and for me most important, so we should think of according it a separate identity rather than tagging it with the 6-14 age group.

Latha Bhaskar, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Kerala

I would like to share my views about the early childhood care and education provided through the ICDS scheme. I have experience working as Child Development Project Officer / Programme officer in the social welfare department for 15 years and I feel that it is a wonderful scheme implemented by the Government of India, to support millions of children from poor families. Integrated services- supplementary feeding, immunization, health care, preschool education, care for the expectant and nursing mothers, health education to mothers etc- provided through the Anganwadi centers are very comprehensive and helped to bring lots of positive changes in the maternal and child care sector.

Since we are discussing the ECCE here, let me highlight a few points in the context of Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) which serves millions of under 6 children from poor families in our country. In spite of the flexibility for local adaptations the services provided are never tailor made to suit to the local situation or need of the children. If a little bit of fine tuning is done in these anganwadis can help to develop full potential of poor Indian children which in turn will l change the profile of India.

The ECCE through Anganwadis need to be fine tuned to suit to the developmental needs of the children and efforts to this direction should be considered with added thrust now.

I suggest that an anganwadi should have 3 sections - crèche facilities for under 3 children, a lower KG for 3-4 and an upper KG for 4-6 children, on the basis of their development needs. Crèche facilities are required only in areas where working women need such facilities.

Lower KG section should focus on the gross motor development needs of the child, providing opportunities to develop it through play way methods/opportunities. Climbing, running, jumping, and playing around will help to develop such gross motors. Anganwadi should have sufficient open space to provide such opportunities and making children sit within the four walls of the center won't help this.

Once the gross motors are developed, focus on fine motor development through more creative play activities. Eye-hand coordination, hand mouth coordination etc are achieved through fine motor development. The child can be given opportunities for painting, drawing, clay modeling, sand and water play, making beads etc. Alphabets, colors, counting etc can be gradually introduced along with lots of information about everything they see around. But the child should be given freedom for playing around and education should not be a burden for them.

A child coming out of an anganwadi should be healthy through nutritional and health care services, should have gross motor and fine motor developments and lots of good knowledge about the surroundings, which will serve as a sure basement for his formal development. In this preschool age they will also learn social skills through give and take sharing in the group life provided in anganwadi centers.

There is one anganwadi serving every thousand population and as such, there is an army of anganwadi centers in every state in India. Preschool educational experts should consider these centers in such discussions and authorities need to think of modifying the services provided through anganwadi centers targeting poor sections of the population.

Bhawna Tripathi, Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra

First and foremost, we need to understand that formulating and creating more and more laws will only entangle situations further and do more harm than good. What is more urgently required is sound and efficient implementation of existing laws. So far as the Right to Education Act is concerned, it has undoubtedly neglected a very vital developmental stage of life. In other words, the Act talks of constructing a building without laying its foundation. There is ample scope for the Act to include children below 6 years of age and thus refrain from depriving them of education. In addition to these 14-18 years is the time when the child begins to utilize knowledge in the actual sense and begins to draw parallels between theory and the real world around him/her. Proper guidance and training at this stage of life bears equal significance. Thus, suitable amendments should be brought about in the Constitution and the Act thereafter.

For the sound enforcement of the Act, I strongly recommend decentralized administration and multi-level planning. At macro level, there should be a national body authorized to look after the smooth administration of educational services and both the government and NGOs or other voluntary organizations can join hands for the purpose. In addition to this, there should be zonal, state, district, city and school level authorities serving the same purpose. Micro level authorities need to be necessarily accountable to the authority functioning at the macro (national) level. Schools should give importance to quality rather than concentrating on quantity thereby enrolling children in schools just for the namesake. Schools should design the curriculum and schedule in synchronization to the psycho-social needs of the developing children and at the same time be able strike a balance between theory and practical utility of the subject matter being taught. Rules and regulations must be clearly stated and made public in order to maintain transparency and preserve the principles of social justice and equity.

Moreover, the situation needs to be understood and analyzed from a wider perspective. There has to be an all out attack on the prevailing circumstances and considerable efforts have to be made to erect a viable, efficient and cost-effective educational system by evolving better infrastructural facilities and advocating positive discrimination.

Zakiya Kurrien, Centre For Learning Resources, Pune

In my initial response some days ago, I had made a plea for including preschool education for the 3-6 age group in the RTE Act. Many of us, for many years, had campaigned relentlessly for this provision. The ECCE / ECCD community has always known that putting centre-based early childhood education on a holistic, developmentally appropriate track was going to be an uphill task. But reading some of the responses in this forum, I find that there is now a sudden fear that simply by its inclusion as a right within the RTE Act, it will be impossible to regulate a developmentally appropriate approach. The understanding seems to be that it would willy-nilly have to be implemented by the Department of Elementary Education and Literacy (DEE&L) and if so, that all child development principles will be compromised.

In this connection, I would like members to consider the following:

The position of the National Focus Group on Early Childhood Education was documented as recently as 2006 with Mina Swaminathan as chairperson and several leading professionals like Dr. Anandalakshmy, Venita Kaul, Asha Singh, etc. as members. The position paper had unequivocally concluded that ECCE must be brought firmly within the framework of Education For All (EFA) and Universal Elementary Education (UEE), "with responsibility and accountability for all programmes for children above 3 years lying with the DEE&L, while programmes for children below 3 years will be the responsibility of the Department of Women and Child Development (DWCD).
If the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) is providing a sound basis for important reforms in school education (implemented through the DEE&L), it would be possible to formulate a similar NCF specifically for preschool education, with flexibility for differing social and cultural context. The National Focus Group has already laid out a copious outline on which this could be based.

There is a consensus amongst us that an additional and separate act is necessary for the entire 0-6 age group to gain access to all the services / opportunities that make for a healthy, stimulating environment. Only the issue of where centre-based preschool education for 3-6 year olds belongs is debatable, as we do already have the RTE Act which can be amended.

Campaigning for, and formulating the new act, especially the legal aspects of "justiciability", will take time, while there is a possibility that a timely amendment to the RTE Act could at least make the right to preschool education justiciable far sooner (not only "justifiable" – there is some confusion as to the use of these two terms).

Some members of this forum are suggesting that implementation of all programmes for the 0-6 years age group, including preschool education, remain with the DWCD. The National Focus Group on the other hand has not only recommended that the DEE&L be responsible for centre-based preschool education, but has also looked into provisions for regulation of miseducative practices through the setting up of "Child Development Boards".

As Dr. Anandalakshmy has pointed out, legislation alone cannot address all the issues. The advocacy tasks before us are daunting. Vimala Ramachandran has made apt suggestions, and further discussions are necessary to draw up specific plans for focused advocacy.

D.D.Pandey, National Institute for Public Cooperation and Child Development, New Delhi

It should be a right based approach of providing stimulating, healthy and enabling environment for all children, from birth to five years of age. I have specifically mentioned the age span from 0-5 years only as out of 35 States/Union Territories in the country, as per Primary Education act, in 22 States/UTs the entry age for class 1 is 5+.
The Government is already committed to provide one year pre schooling to all children. The commitment of the Government duly signed by Honourable Prime Minister has already been reflected in Eleventh Five Year Plan Document. The Knowledge Commission also has recommended that one year pre schooling has to be made compulsory (though all the recommendations are not yet accepted by the Government).
So far as public provisions for the same is concerned, we may adopt the Nagaland Model where commendable work has been done in PSE across the State and in all its sectors be it the teachers training, enrolment , linkages etc.

It should not be from 0-6 years but from 0-5 years. Further, experiences of sound ECCE has to be provided by adopting mix approach (public + private initiatives). Minimum specification and accreditation of ECCE centers should be made compulsory. No any ECCE centre (either public or private) should be allowed to operate if it fails to satisfy the minimum essential conditions specified by the specialist. Though it is a difficult task and involves huge risk but beginning has to be made.
There emerges a pressing need to come out with national data and statistical indicators (GER, NER, gender differentiation, regional disparities) concerning various aspects of ECE. This may be done by gathering the requisite information / statistical data on various indicators of ECE in the (a) forthcoming eighth national educational survey to be carried out by NCERT shortly, (b) in national census, which is scheduled to be conducted in 2010, (c) through National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), (d) through District Information System of Education (DISE) and (e) through SSA district education plans.
Besides developing the national data base on identified statistical indicators of ECE, state profiles also need to be developed so as to facilitate taking corrective measures. While developing the state specific ECE profiles, the data on specific indicators like state specific policy and governance framework, target setting, policies and directives, stakeholders participation, national and international development partners, monitoring and evaluation mechanism, assessing the effectiveness of ECE intervention, strategies being adopted, implementing agencies, resource inputs in terms of financial, infrastructure , material, programmes/ services, delivered curricula and learning outcomes etc ,also need to be collected .
There emerges a pressing need to educate the community to be more selective and/or demanding as consumers which could serve as an effective monitoring /regulating device of ECE under private sector. This awareness aspect needs to be promoted using different modes of mass media.
Child Development economics has not been subject for serious study or debate in Indian Academic fraternity. Though in final version of 11th Five Year Plan, the Government is committed to Child Budgeting aspect, but in practice no such attempt has been made. In fact, on the lines of UNESCO, which has set up educational chairs in various universities/research institutions in India in as diverse areas as culture, peace, human rights, teacher education, policy makers are required to set up a chair of ECCD in India also . In fact the Union Government may also direct various sister ministries/ departments concerning ECCD (education, health, social justice and empowerment, tribal affairs, rural development, finance and alike) to prepare their budget incorporating child financing as an in built phenomenon as has been done in case of gender budgeting. The Union Government has to get it ensured that every State/UT should have separate WCD department with networking up to district level so that various measures being adopted may be monitored closely and attended well to at the micro level reaching to the smallest unit possible. Most importantly, the Government must allocate resources not only for developing and implementing a system for monitoring the conditions and quality of ECCD services but also to strengthen the PSE to the same extent that it does for primary schooling.
Financial provision for ECCD also needs to be experimented on PPP mode. In order to further facilitate public spending on child development, the state may explore ways to induce contributions not only from the corporate world perhaps through tax exemptions, but also by creating a cess on all employers, developing state- centre partnerships and by mobilizing local and community resources as recommended by National Focus Group on early childhood care and education appointed by NCERT (2005).
Under contemporary circumstances, public financing on child development should not be treated in the way to mean that Non State Child Expenditure (NSCE) is negligible or unimportant. In fact, NSCE being made by various social institutions, household, private providers, voluntary endeavors and corporate bodies has come out in a big way, especially after opting for mixed and global economy in post liberalized, privatized and globalized (LPG) era. However, lack of fiscal data concerning NSCE seems to be a major limitation for analyzing their contribution in child development in India. In conformity of this, the estimation of non-state managed investment inputs in child development seems to be essential. This data would prove to be helpful to redefining the share, shape and size of the non-state child expenditure in the overall context of meeting out total estimated fiscal requirements for the entire child development sector. However, this is a policy imperative and needs to be essentially managed by initiating Public Private Partnership (triple PPP) initiative. Thus, in order to move further to strengthen the economics of ECCD in the country, applied researches are required to be conducted to gather statistics on the relative share of state, non profit( international organizations and NGOs) and private operators.
It is a matter of common observation that most of the time the public programmes concerning ECCD is heavily loaded with supply side interventions. Granting the participants of the programme as merely the status of passive recipients and thus targeting them as subject of mere beneficiaries can best be seen to exemplify this sorry state of affairs. Due to this bigger damage , these programmes on the one side have either failed to generate the demands among the public for their right and responsibilities and for greater awareness and on the other side treats the beneficiaries as mere recipients only rather than equal partners in the service delivery mechanism. Further, unlike of utopic state of equality and taking care of divergent interest of caste, class and gender, these programme functionaries of ICDS tends to describe the community as constituent unit which is homogenous and non exploitative in nature. Thus, it is urgently needed to replace the concept of community participation with that of peoples participation encompassing all those (technocrats, mangers, middle level functionaries, socio political system, community at large and of course the beneficiaries), concerned with policy / decision making process and project formulation and implementation mechanism

It is recommended that ECE should be made a subject under Business Allocation Rules of Department of Women and Child Development by various state governments as has been made in Government of India under MWCD.
There was a specific recommendation also of sub group on ECE for 11th Five Year Plan that a national Policy on ECCD needs to be formulated. Recently, MWCD has also issued an office order constituting the core team to restructure the ECE system in the country. Thus separate act needs to be prepared. Such separate acts already exist in many developing and developed countries across the globe.

B.L.Kaul, Society for Popularization of Science and Progressive Educational Society, Jammu

Mina Swaminathan's elaborate explanation of development of a child up-to six years is quite interesting. It is indeed true that development of a child starts from the time of conception. The development in the womb is guided by the genetic composition of the foetus and the environment provided by the mother. While we can hardly do anything with the genetic make up the environment of mothers' womb and nutrition provided by the mother through placenta is extremely important for the proper growth of the foetus. I am constantly reminded of this fact by a CRETIN living in my neighborhood. Had the medical facilities available then in the village where her parents lived 35 years ago when she was conceived she would be a normal woman today. The absence of Iodine in her mother's diet made all the difference to her life.

The first six years after birth of a child are most important for the growth of the body and brain. A child is born with a certain number of brain cells and unlike other body cells they do not have the capacity to divide and increase in number. They can grow but not multiply. Brain cells grow at the expense of proteins fed to a child. Unfortunately majority of our children do not get adequate amounts of proteins in their diet. This fact needs to be emphasized that the first six years of a child are crucial for the development of his/her brain and proteins play a crucial part during this period .Proteins being building materials for the body too their presence in the diet are also very essential.

So we need to educate our people about this. It is not only the meat and eggs that are a rich source of proteins. There are cheaper sources of proteins available in the country which need to be popularized.

Ganesh Upadhyay, National Council of Education Research and Training, New Delhi

Right to Education and right to care need to be defined operationally for the kind of services they need for their implementation and making them justifiable. The entitlement of a child under 3 for care and education is closely linked with the entitlement of mother and this is more relevant especially for disadvantaged and weaker sections of society.

Right to health , right to food, right to play are some of the rights which are operationally clearer and feasible to and stimulation be implemented as components of holistic development. Thus home based care and education for Under Three need to be given attention more than ever for realization of the goals set forth. This is of course linked with the parental wellbeing and competency to deal with issues of the child's right to development. Under NREAGA the provision made for crèche has remained unutilized mostly because of the lack of awareness of communities to take advantage of the provision.

As far as the Pre Primary Education is concerned, it should be with MHRD and habitation level plans for ECCE be made along with the SSA plans for implementation and monitoring. One year pre primary though out the country with all institutions of elementary education be made available as was proposed by the Planning Commission and also recently by the Knowledge Commission. This however should not dilute the demand for care and development as justiciable right of young children.

Rajan Thampi, Birraju Foundation, Andhra Pradesh

I fully agree with the idea of Ms. Latha Bhaskar in regard with the three sections. But out of my experience with early child care and development and my continuous interaction with the anganwadi workers, ICDS officials and care givers especially mothers, I feel that it is not only the responsibility of anganwadi workers to provide opportunity for early learning but also of care givers including male counter parts. The ECCD should not be considered just as center based learning. It should have wider horizon which includes family and community who should provide every possible opportunity for a child to learn, it could be through center or in child's environment/surroundings. This is possible only when care givers/community as a whole, ready to play a proactive role in providing opportunity for children in Exploring, experimenting and learning.

With regard to the act, I personally feel that it is high time to recognize ECCD/ECCE as a separate entity and make every individual to understand the importance of early child care. I strongly feel that Anganwadi workers should be kept away from other activities like survey and other mobilization activities.

Ganesh Upadhyay, National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi

Right to survival , development, protection and participation have been already put into operational terms in the plan of Action for young children by the Ministry of Women and Child Development .Right to survival and optimal development during ECCE period especially for the Under three is closely linked with mother's well being and her entitlement. All children are entitled for best care and education during early childhood. However realization of these rights may demand differential treatment in a diverse country like ours. Home based strategies need to be planned and implemented. The provisioning made under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) for child care has not been utilized by and large in the states. Similarly under Mahila Samakhya the component of child care and education need to be better planned for its quality and coverage. The ECCE under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) has remained half heard as many states even after having provisioning of some degree have not been abled to utilize the resources available for the purpose of ECCE.

National Programme for Education of Girls at Elementary Level (NPEGEL) has also the potential to enhance the coverage to include all communities /families living under disadvantage conditions to gain from. All these and other programmes require some level of threshold facilities to take off the programmes for the realization of child development goals. Right to health cannot be realized unless we have functional and well equipped Primary Health Centers (PHC) in all blocks. Similarly right to play cannot be realized unless provisions for play are made as a right. To combat the menace of malnutrition the management of SNP and midday meal need to be further strengthened. For right to survival mothers entitlement needs to be linked with child's right. This all indicates and concludes towards

Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) have to be strengthened and modernized as per the aspirations of parents and demand for social justice and equity. We cannot continue to have poor programme for poor children and English medium for rich ones. Modernization may take equalization for facilities and resources at par with the best of the ECCE programmes. This is particularly important for under three child.

For pre school child, the implementation of education policy provisions need to be implemented in terms of day care facilities and pre primary education in the education sector along with child development programme of ICDS.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for one year preprimary in all the institutions of elementary education holds good and need to be pursued vigorously. The same has been the view of Knowledge commission.
Leaving education component to WCD is not going to yield desired results as infrastructure facilities for training and professional development rest largely with education sector and coordination between the two departments has remained wanting all through these years. It is better to push for Pre schooling as a part of SSA throughout the country right from the habitation level planning to implementation and monitoring.

Umesh Chandra Pandey, School of Good Governance and Policy Analysis, Bhopal

I congratulate Ms Venita Kaul for highlighting this important issue of Early Childhood Education. The issues involved in Early Childhood need to be taken care of, urgently and very seriously by the Government if we want to ensure the right to education for 6+ age group. One of the major reasons for poor performance of school education is "weak infrastructure" ,"un trained professionals" and "lack of proper perspectives" among the planners about early child hood education.

The needs of the Early Childhood have to be addressed with a different perspective. It is an entirely different professional area with its own set of intricacies and problems. One of the problems with existing systems is that people tend to relate the 0-6 age group as the down ward extension of the formal schooling after 6+ .This has narrowed down entire outlook. With this type of perspective we have in fact done more damage to children than we have helped them. We need to first recognize the problems and then try to put in place required systems, trained personnel and infrastructure.

There is certainly a need to evolve the enactment of laws to ensure early childhood care but it will not be fair to merge the educational requirements of early child hood with the right to education for 6+ age group.

I feel that the rights of this age group can be addressed through a different act which can possibly be better taken care of by Ministry of Women and Child Development.

Anjali Noronha, Eklavya, Bhopal

While I feel that the right of all children to appropriate stimulation and nutrition, from birth that ensures all round development should be ensured - the path to attaining this right for the 0-3 and the 3-6 age group needs perhaps to be different. That of 0-3 would perhaps be provided best at home - and I think I saw somewhere that the right to get support of care givers at home through the NREGA for working women is being accepted. Then parents and caregivers need to be oriented and their capacities built to provide this stimulation and nutrition at home.
For the 3 -5 age group it should perhaps be center based and such centers should be associated with the elementary school - I think developmental psychologists would agree to a broad stage of development of age 3-8. The truncated nature of schooling as 3-5 and 6-8 has done more harm than good. I think those of us interested in this area should campaign that the 3-5 age group be handed over to the school education department from the WCD. The Anganwadi worker does not have the time nor the ability to cope with the cognitive, emotional and social needs of this age group along with the nutritional and health needs of the earlier age group and pre-natal and neonatal care - this should keep the WCD department's hands full and they should let go of the 3-5 age group. There should however, be an option for parents to keep their children at home during this age group, provided they undergo a certain orientation about this age group.
The third issue is that of the teacher for this age group. If over some time bound period it is possible to make the above changes in the structure of schooling, then there should be a 2-3 year (or even perhaps 4) D.ed post + 2 focused on early childhood - age 3-8 - nursery to class 2 - if one believes in grades. There is a lot to be done on teacher education for this early but crucial phase of childhood - as of now its a free for all. And the greatest causality of 3-5 remaining with ICDS and WCD is that there is hardly any focus on quality of teachers at this stage - and of those children who do go to Anganwadis or nursery schools, the majority may perhaps be much worse off than their counterparts who do not go to centers or schools.
And lastly we should perhaps develop national standards of provision and nature of stimulation and nutrition required for the 0-6 (8) age group. I know there have been some quite good and comprehensive attempts to do so - but can they and others come together and make a combined effort?

Jessy Abraham, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

I feel very strongly with all others that there is a need for giving more focus, priority and streamlining in the area of ECCE. We should try to make others feel the importance of ECCE. If all the efforts of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) to make the children attain Elementary Education a reality, children need to be prepared for the formal education, without that the survival rates will be poor as we observe now. India's pathetic position in Education Quality Index is due to the poor survival rate of children in primary school. In a country where less than 10 percent schools have a preschool attached with what else could be the outcome. I wish the efforts of this involving people like Professor Kaul, Ms. Swaminathan and others working in this area could make a change, we need a policy, we need a separate council or a ministry to handle all aspects pertaining to ECCE.

Many thanks to all who contributed to this query!

If you have further information to share on this topic, please send it to Solution Exchange for the Education Community in India at se-ed@solutionexchange-un.net.in with the subject heading "Re: [se-ed] Query: Strategies to Increase Focus on Early Childhood Care and Development –Discussion. Additional Reply."

Disclaimer: In posting messages or incorporating these messages into synthesized responses, the UN accepts no responsibility for their veracity or authenticity. Members intending to use or transmit the information contained in these messages should be aware that they are relying on their own judgment.

	Copyrighted under Creative Commons License "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5". Re-users of this material must cite as their source Solution Exchange as well as the item's recommender, if relevant, and must share any derivative work with the Solution Exchange Community.
	Solution Exchange is a UN initiative for development practitioners in India. For more information please visit www.solutionexchange-un.net.in

--
Ch.Santakar
Pujariput
Koraput-764020
Orissa
Mob:09437192553
e-mail:santakar@gmail.com
web:www.koraputonline.com

educationkoraput

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Fwd: [se-ed] Discussion Summary: Strategies to Increase Focus on EarlyChildhood Care and Development

Education Community

Consolidated Reply

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me