Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [highschoolscience] Fw: Mumbai Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.

Expand Messages
  • Pankaj Jain
    Sir, In the word document attached to your report, the total expenditure of Mumbai Corporation for 2012-13 was Rs. 2342.63 croes, which comes to Rs. 58565/-
    Message 1 of 39 , Mar 14, 2013

      In the word document attached to your report, the total expenditure of Mumbai Corporation for 2012-13 was Rs. 2342.63 croes, which comes to Rs. 58565/- per child per year for the reported number of 400000/- children in the BMC schools.

      Is there some study about the learning level of children when the Govt. is paying an effective fee of Rs. 58565/- per child? This does not include the cost of land and building, which in Mumbai could mean another Rs. 30000/- or so. 

      Why should you oppose privatization if private parties could provide better education at half the cost, with savings deployed to improve education in other Govt. funded schools.

      You should also oppose privatization of road construction in Bihar by Nitish Govt. in Bihar, which has contributed to 10% growth of Bihar, and privatization of telecom sector in India, which has provided cheap and effective telecom service to all, including poor. Who do you care more about, the Children or Employees of Corporation Schools, on whose much of the budget is spent?

      --- On Fri, 3/15/13, Anil Sadgopal <anilsadgopal@...> wrote:

      From: Anil Sadgopal <anilsadgopal@...>
      Subject: [highschoolscience] Fw: Mumbai Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.
      To: "IHRO Yahoogroups" <ihro@yahoogroups.com>, "arkitect India" <arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com>, "indiafirst yahoogroups" <indianfirst@yahoogroups.com>, "Dalits Media Watch" <pmarc@...>, "orissa-education googlegroups" <orissa-education-forum@...>, "ECCEright googlegroups" <ncecceright@...>, "wbindiacrit list" <wbindiacrit@...>, "shikshaadhikarmanch bhopal" <shikshaadhikarmanch-bhopal@...>, "Highschool Science" <highschoolscience@...>, bharat-chintan@...
      Cc: "EPW Editor" <edit@...>, "Editor The Hindu" <editor@...>, "Siddharth Varadarajan" <siddharth.varadarajan@...>, "Siddharth Varadarajan" <sv1965@...>, "Siddharth Varadarajan" <svaradarajan@...>, "Vijay Manohar Tiwari" <vm.tiwari@...>, "Vijay Manohar Tiwari" <vijaye9@...>, "SRAVANI SARKAR" <sravani.sarkar@...>, "Editor Jansatta" <edit.jansatta@...>, "rajendra rajan jansatta" <rajendrarajan@...>, "Ravindra Soni" <ravindra.soni@...>, "Ravindra Soni" <soni_rkumar@...>, "Asha Singh" <journalism.asha@...>, "Sandeep Pandey" <ashaashram@...>, "Girish Upadhyay" <girish.upadhyay@...>, "Girish Upadhyay" <guindia@...>, "Editor Outlook" <edit@...>, "Outlook" <outlook@...>, "Frontline" <frontline@...>
      Date: Friday, March 15, 2013, 1:02 AM

      Dear all,

      The MUMBAI SHIKSHAN KAMPANIKARAN VIRODHI ABHIYAN (मुंबई शिक्षण कंपनीकरण विरोधी अभियान) has decided to observe Saturday, 16th march 2013 as the state-level protest day against the ominous decision of the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika to handover all of its 1174 schools to private parties under PPP. 


      The decision must not be envisaged as a local matter of Mumbai since its repercussions would be felt not only all over Maharashtra but India as well. Apparently, the neo-liberal forces, through this decision, are testing the resolve and strength of the progressive sections of Indian society. If they get away with it, your state, district, Block or municipal committee is bound to be next.


      This is a wake up call. Join the movement.


      A brief interim report is given below along with the attachments in Hindi/ Marathi/ English.


      Contact person

      Sh. Shyam Sonar, Mumbai – 8080829499;


      Members of the Nimantrak (Convening) Committee:


      1. Sh. Arvind Vaidya, Samaan Shikshan Moolbhoot Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai  - 9969921981.

      2. Sh. Neeraj Jain, Lokayat, Pune – 9422220311.

      3. Sh. Abhijit, Lokayat, Pune – 9422308125/ 8975806328.

      4. Dr. Millind Wagh, Shikshan Bazarikaran Virodhi Manch, Nasik -  9423964966. 




      Anil Sadgopal

      All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE)

      --- On Thu, 14/3/13, All India Forum RightTo Education <aifrte.secretariat@...> wrote:

      From: All India Forum RightTo Education <aifrte.secretariat@...>
      Subject: Mumbai Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.
      To: "AIF Elementary TO (Prabhakar Arade)" <ardentview@...>, "Anil Sadgopal" <anilsadgopal@...>, "haragopal" <profharagopal@...>, "Kedarnath Pandey" <bsta1925@...>, "madhu prasad" <madhuchopra@...>, "mehar engineer" <mengineer2003@...>, "Sunil" <sjpsunil@...>, "wasi Ahmed (Ashutosh)" <ashutosh.rakesh@...>, "ajit jha" <samajwadjp@...>, "Chetna Andolan (Trepan Singh Chauhan)" <trepans@...>, "Chetna Andolan, Uttarakhand (Trepan chauhan)" <trepansingh@...>, "Comm. for EFRE (Simanthini dhuru)i dhuru" <simantinidhuru@...>, "Dr. Vikram Singh Amarawat" <vsamarawat@...>, "Radhika Menon" <radhikamenon1@...>, "ramesh patnaik" <drameshptk@...>, "S. L. Guddi" <kgaswadesi1947@...>, "Sarwat Ali" <ali.sarwat@...>, "Sarwat Ali" <alisarwat@...>, "Shaheen Ansari" <ansarishaheen@...>, "Abhijit A M" <abhijit13@...>, "ABSU (Pramod Boro)" <pramodboro75@...>, "AISF (Com. Abhay Taksal)" <aisfindia@...>, "anraptf" <anraptf@...>, "arvind vaidya" <arvindvaidya0303@...>, "Geeta Athreya" <geetaathreya@...>, "IPK Sundaram" <ipk_1941@...>, "mahendra kumar mishra" <mkmfolk@...>, "Ms. Mallige smv" <malligesmv@...>, "Ms. Medha" <medhaonline@...>, "Nishikant Mahapatra" <nishimohapatra@...>, "Nishulk Shiksha Abhiyan (S.S. Pasrija)" <pasrijass@...>, "Nishulk Shiksha Abhiyan (S.S. Pasrija)" <shaktidatabharat@...>, "Pankaj Pushkar" <pankaj.pushkar@...>, "Pramod Boro" <createbodoland@...>, "PRASAR" <prasar21@...>, "Prince Gajendra Babu TNP for CSS" <tnpcommonschool@...>, "Prof. D.P.Mishra" <mishra@...>, "Prof. Jagmohan Singh" <jagmohan.info@...>, "Prof. Minati Panda" <minatip@...>, "Prof. Rajendra Chaudhury " <rajinderc@...>, "Rachanatmak Shikshak Mandal (Navendu Mathpal)" <navendu.mathpal@...>, "Ravi chander" <ravichanderk@...>, "Sahid UL Hussaini" <schooltodayhindimasik@...>, "Samajwadi Jan Parishad (Lingaraj)" <lingaraj.sjp@...>, "Sh. Neeraj Jain" <neerajj61@...>, "Somasekhara Sarma" <nsssarma@...>, "Synroplang, Shillong (Surjit Thokchom)" <ssthokchom@...>, "Vikas Gupta" <vikasedu@...>, "y. satyam" <aptfhyderabad@...>, aptf.upadhyaya@..., praptf@..., "Balanna M" <balanna53@...>, "Channa Basavaiah" <cb1611@...>, "Dr. Gangadhar, DTF" <sudhakarsere.dtf@...>, "K Laxminarayana" <klnss@...>, "k narayana" <konjarlan@...>, "k.y.ratnam" <ratnam09@...>, "ksubbarao_p" <ksubbarao_p@...>, "laxminarayana.k" <kln_eco@...>, "m. hanmesh" <approgressiveunion@...>, "m.gangadhar" <manchalagangadhar@...>, "Panduranga Varaprasad" <panduaptf@...>, "Prof. Chakradhar Rao konatham" <chraok@...>, "Ramanjaneyulu Goddu" <goddu.ramanji@...>, "Sannasetty Rajasekhar" <sannasetty@...>, "Subbareddy K" <subbareddy.aptf@...>, "venuaptf" <venuaptf@...>
      Date: Thursday, 14 March, 2013, 9:45 PM

      Dear all,




      Here is a brief interim report leading up to the state-wide protest on 16th March 2013.


      The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, the wealthiest municipal body in the country, decided on 23rd January 2013 to handover all of its 1174 primary, elementary and high schools to corporate houses, NGOs and religious bodies under PPP under the pretext of improving the quality of education. The decision is awaiting final approval by the state government before implementation begins. The total number of children enrolled in these schools is about 4 lacs who are taught by approximately 11,500 teachers. It is the only self-government body in the country which offers 8 languages as medium of education viz. Marathi, Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and English.  


      Similar decisions to handover individual or small clusters of schools by various statutory authorities, including the state governments, in different parts of the country have been taken since neo-liberal policies were instituted in 1990s. However, this is the first time in post-independence India that a statutory body has resolved to totally abdicate its Constitutional obligation in a single stroke. Samaan Shikshan Moolbhoot Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai, a member-organisation of AIFRTE, started campaigning against this decision last year when the Education Committee and Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation were successively engaged in passing resolutions in support of this ill-conceived plan. Delegations were organized to register its protest but to no avail.


      Expecting the decision to be taken by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation in January 2013, the aforesaid Mumbai Committee asked AIFRTE to take initiative in bringing together all concerned organizations of Maharashtra under a single umbrella to build up a powerful state-wide protest movement. Accordingly, AIFRTE helped organize two meetings at Pune – 26th January and 10th February – hosted by the local organization, Lokayat. As a result, 17 organisations from different parts of the state decided to constitute a State Committee (Rajya Abhiyan Samiti) for organizing a state-wide Mumbai Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan (मुंबई शिक्षण कंपनीकरण विरोधी अभियान). The State Committee declared 16th March 2013 as the state-level protest day when protests will be organized at every district headquarter, including all major cities of the state.


      In pursuance of this decision, 25 organisations based in Mumbai met on 1st March to chalk out its action programme for 16th March. The participating organisations included student organisations, political parties, trade unions, dalit and women groups, educational and housing right groups and other issue-based initiatives. On 4th March, a small delegation led by Sh. Prakash Ambedkar (Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangh) and Com. Prakash Reddy of CPI met the Chief Minister. Several senior leaders of social movements and other eminent persons of Maharashtra (Dr. ND Patil, Bhai Vaid, Prof. Pushpa Bhave, Justice BN Deshmukh, senior CPI leaders Com. Ganpatrao Deshmukh and Com. Govindrao Pansare, film maker Sh. Anand Patwardhan, actress Smt. Ratna Pathak Shah), members of the proposed delegation, could not reach Mumbai due to the appointment given only one day in advance, though it was sought several weeks in advance. The Chief Minister surprised the delegation by stating that he is not even aware of the decision of the municipal corporation and promised to inquire into the matter and meet the full delegation later by giving a proper notice. He, however, defended the decision by contending that this measure will promote competition between government and private schools, leading to general improvement in the quality of education! The delegation, however, pointed out that the best educational institutions of the country like Kendriya and Novodaya Vidyalayas, Central Universities, IITs and Regional Engineering Colleges, IIMs, AIIMS and state medical colleges and National Law Schools have provided the highest quality of education without needing such an ‘imagined competition’.

          Indeed, it is a trying time for education loving people both in Maharashtra and throughout India. The proposal for privatisation  of Mumbai      Municipal Corporation schools is a test dose. If democratic forces do not raise to the occasion, not only the Mumbai schools will be privatised but also government schools elsewhere in Maharashtra and in different states would be privatised in the same lines. There is a news from Uttarakhand that 2200 government schools will be privatised. Let all of us take this issue with necessary seriousness.     


      The following 11 Maharashtra-based member-organisations or Associated Organisations of AIFRTE are playing a pivotal role in building this historic movement: i) Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha (ABSAS) headquartered in Pune; ii) All India Federation of Elementary Teachers’ Organisations (AIFETO) along with its Maharashtra Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Samiti; iii) All India Students Association (AISA), Maharashtra Unit; iv) All India Students Federation (AISF), Maharashtra Unit; v) All India Revolutionary Students Organisation (AIRSO), Maharashtra Unit; vi) Lokayat, Pune; vii) Samaan Shikshan Moolbhoot Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai; viii) Satyashodhak Shikshak Sabha, Maharashtra; ix) Shikshan Bazarikaran Virodhi Manch, Nasik; x) Yusuf Meharally Centre, Mumbai; xi) Yusuf Meherally Yuva Biradari, Maharashtra.


      The following Maharashtra-based members of AIFRTE’s National Executive are acting as source of inspiration, morale-boosting and ideological binding in the movement: Sh. Prabhakar Arade, Kolhapur of AIFETO; Dr. Dilip Chavan, SRT Marathwada University, Nanded & Satya Shodhak Shikshak Sabha; Ms. Simantini Dhuru of AVEHI-ABACUS Project & Samaan Shikshan Moolbhoot Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai; Ms. Guddi of Yusuf Meherally Yuva Biradari; Sh. Neeraj Jain & Sh. Abhijit of Lokayat, Pune; Sh. Arvind Vaidya of Samaan Shikshan Moolbhoot Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai.


      The Rajya Abhiyan Samiti nominated Sh Arvind Vaidya, Sh. Neeraj Jain and Dr. Millind Wagh as the Nimantrak (Convening) Committee, with Sh. Vaidya as its Mukhya Nimantrak (Principal Convenor).


      Sh. Shyam Sonar of Samaan Shikshan Moolbhoot Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai was nominated as Office Co-ordinator for the Abhiyan.


      Apart from its Maharashtra-based members listed above, AIFRTE was represented at the aforesaid meetings by: Prof. Anil Sadgopal, Bhopal; Sh. Ramesh Patnaik, Hyderabad; Drs. Vikram Amarawat & Amarendra Pandey, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ahmedabad.



      Documents attached (English Translations Awaited; last attachment i.e. Fact Sheet on Municipal Schools is in English):

      1. Abhiyan’s Concept Note (Hindi)

      2. Abhiyan’s Concept Note (Marathi)

      3. Abhiyan’s Signature Campaign Letter to CM (Marathi)

      4. Report of Abhiyan’s Delegation Meeting with CM on 4th March 2013 (Hindi)

      5. Abhiyan’s Handbill for 16th March State-wide Protest (Hindi)

      6. Abhiyan’s Handbill for 16th March State-wide Protest (Marathi)

      7. Fact Sheet on Mumbai Municipal Corporation, compiled by Ms. Simantini Dhuru of AVEHI-ABACUS Project & Samaan Shikshan Moolbhoot Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai.

          8. English leaflet_ Protest  on 16th March_  Maharashtra 





      Anil Sadgopal,

         Member, Presidium,
         All India Forum for Right to Education 

      Ramesh Patnaik

      Organising Secretary

      All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE)

      To post to this group, send email to highschoolscience@...
      To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
      For more options, visit this group at
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "High School Science" group.
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to highschoolscience+unsubscribe@....
      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
    • Janaki Rajan
      Pankaj, You constantly sidestep when asked questions that threaten your pre-decided ideas-that is not a dialogue-and therefore what you say cannot be
      Message 39 of 39 , Mar 23, 2013
        You constantly sidestep when asked questions that threaten your pre-decided ideas-that is not a dialogue-and therefore what you say cannot be 'propositions'. your are perhaps more dogmatic yourself than those you claim are. You will have to provide something more substantial than shrugging this off.

        On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Pankaj Jain <pjain2002@...> wrote:

        Well, May be you could do that campaign, after we have shown it happening at many places, with your active support. I am doing this advocacy since I want this to happen for a million poor children. It is not my concern, and should not be your concern too, if another 10 million relatively rich children pay Rs. 30,000/- or more for that.

        So, will you support this deal/offer? Or there are still other issues of concern, yet not addressed in my proposition?


        --- On Thu, 3/21/13, Janaki Rajan <rajan.janaki@...> wrote:

        From: Janaki Rajan <rajan.janaki@...>
        Subject: Re: [Arkitect India] Mumbai Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.
        To: arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 8:42 PM


        Answer this first: Since you are such a stickler for efficiency, and since you can do this for 7K, why dont you campaign for eltie schools to also pay 7K? Isn't paying more in elite schools a waste since you claim to perform the same service for less? And save parents fees?

        On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Pankaj Jain <pjain2002@...> wrote:

        Sadanandji's use of phrase minimalistic is not appropriate. There are enough agencies, e.g our's, who would guarantee average educational performance of children from poor families @ Rs. 7000/- per year, that would match the average performance of children in 'elite schools'.
        So, if the education levels equal to the average of elite schools is guaranted, would you support my set of propositions?

        --- On Thu, 3/21/13, Janaki Rajan <rajan.janaki@...> wrote:

        From: Janaki Rajan <rajan.janaki@...>
        Subject: Re: [Arkitect India] Mumbai Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.
        To: arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 9:48 AM

        Why minimalistic framework for poor children? Why should maximalist for poor children be always be seen as long term, not doable? Why cop out of the big questions?

        On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Sadanand Patwardhan <2Sadanand@...> wrote:
        Dear All,

        This debate is looping again and again over familiar positions. Everyone has asked the questions:
        1. What is Education? or what would it mean to be educated at different levels [primary/ secondary/ tertiary]?
        2. How to define quality in education?
        I may have missed, but I have not seen anyone answering it wholly and succinctly.

        Till an agreed framework is in place on above two points, may I suggest to educationists here to have discussion under following MINIMALIST framework.
        1. Given National Education Policy.
        2. Given Funding for the same.
        3. Given institutional framework: Public/ Private/ Joint/ informal.
        4. Given Teacher network and what could be made available quickly from existing resource pool.
        How best the program of education can be carried out so as to have best outcome for maximum learners in our country under above circumstances; especially for children from poor, socially/ educationally deprived backgrounds, and from villages and in remote areas.

        If this is agreed upon, then discussion will be fruitful with Jain and Jha on board. Since, tens of thousands of children are missing out even on education that is dictated by present education framework/policy/funding, however inadequate/ill-conceived/ ill-designed/ with whatever wrong goals it may have; this acquires an unstoppable sense of urgency. Inputs, agreement, and finally a programme to usher in desired change or transformation in the existing framework to deliver above modest objectives are direly needed. Otherwise, those children will miss out even on let say bad education.

        The MAXIMALIST framework others are hinting at or attempting to propound is also important, nay highly desirable. But that is a LONG TERM programme requiring fundamental changes in the way our society works and is organised. But though highly desirable, it is not easily attainable and time horizon is uncertain. How to do that could be discussed, debated, agitated separately.

        But why lose the opportunity to gather ideas/ methods/ strategies that could help attain the MINIMUM programme in the meanwhile? At least, it would make the present discussion more productive.

        Sadanand Patwardhan
        +91 99 234 24 661

        --- In arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com, Arun Kumar <arunkumar3165@...> wrote:
        > P.J.
        > I agree with you. We will have to give away something if we want education,
        > food, or health care, security, and peace.
        > I mean. a country that has emerged as the largest buyer of arms in the
        > world (see various reports in the last few days) obviously does not have
        > enough money to spend on items that can be bought from the market.
        > One could add to the suggestion-list, see, if it helps:
        > 1. The Parliament is not functioning well � let�s privatize it.
        > 2. The judiciary is not functioning well, let�s privatize it.
        > 3. There are repeated instances of corruption in army, let�s call

        > uncle Sam.
        > And, since, only market seems to be working well, damn it, why not embrace
        > it. Let�s nationalize the market!
        > Cheers!
        > Arun Kumar
        > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Satish Jha Gmail <satish.jha@...>wrote:
        > > **

        > >
        > >
        > > You are looking at the wrong problem! Much like a doctor treating the skin
        > > aberrations when the patient has cancer in his/her bloodstream
        > >
        > >
        > > Twitter:@satish_jha
        > > www.olpcindia.net
        > > +1 301 841 7422
        > > Sent from my iPhone5
        > >
        > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Pankaj Jain <pjain2002@...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Sir,
        > >
        > > I have repeatedly said that I have no absolute position about the
        > > teacher's salary. All I am saying is that at least one of 4 goals has to be
        > > given up, namely, (i) education of ALL, (ii) VIth Pay commission salary to
        > > ALL teachers, (iii) compliance to RTE norms, and (iv) not more than 6% GDP
        > > as public spending on education.
        > >
        > > The choice is political, as each these four goals is otherwise desirable.
        > >
        > > It is quite likely that VII th Pay Commission too will also make such a
        > > political choice that (i) all teachers will not be paid same salary, and
        > > (ii) RTE norms need not be implemented, and (iii) ALL children need not be
        > > in school. That would be the inevitable outcome of our current political
        > > economy that gives last priority to children, and gives preference to
        > > existing Government and organized sector employees compared to other
        > > equally, or even better qualified, unemployed citizens. It is also clear
        > > that you and majority of writer on this forum have this political
        > > preference.
        > >
        > > Pankaj
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- On *Mon, 3/18/13, rajagopalan ss <ssrajagopalan@...>* wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From: rajagopalan ss <ssrajagopalan@...>

        > > Subject: RE: [Arkitect India] Re: [highschoolscience] Fw: Mumbai Shikshan
        > > Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.
        > > To: "arkitectindia@yahoogroups.comarkitectindia@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Date: Monday, March 18, 2013, 1:36 PM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Pay Commission is composed of eminent persons, chaired by a Rtd SC Judge
        > > and they arrive at pay scales for different categories of employees. If Mr
        > > Pankaj thinks the teachers are overpaid he differs from the criterion
        > > followed by the Commission. He has to wait for the Seventh one, expected in
        > > a short while and make salutory recommendations to ensure that teachers
        > > are paid less than the living wages. Mr Pankajji, it is the monitoring
        > > system that is at fault. Compare Mukesh Ambani's annual remuneration and
        > > compare it with teachers.A teachers annual salary is less than one days
        > > income of Ambani. Does a teacher get all the attention that is paid to
        > > corporate heads? Our concern shd be: The teacher has to deliver. Is he or
        > > is he or she not? If not, what shd be done? Let us restrict oyrselves to
        > > this basic question.
        > > ssr
        > >
        > > ------------------------------
        > > To: arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com
        > > CC: highschoolscience@...
        > > From: pjain2002@...

        > > Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:03:26 -0700
        > > Subject: Re: [Arkitect India] Re: [highschoolscience] Fw: Mumbai Shikshan
        > > Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.
        > >
        > >
        > > Dear Janaki,
        > >
        > > You use very strong, negatively toned, language, which is not necessary in
        > > a civilized discourse, particularly among those who agree with the goals
        > > but differ about the means to achieve these goals.
        > >
        > > I thought I have always responded to the points that you mention below,
        > > but these probably escaped your attention. So, let me repeat/summarize.
        > >
        > > 1. *Teacher Salary*.

        > >
        > > 1 A. My data & analysis in EPW, not contested by anyone so far, shows that
        > > if we pay the VIth pay commission salary to ALL teachers, *and also keep

        > > all the goals of RTE, alongwith proportionate allocation for secondary and
        > > higher college education*, as in most developed countries, then we shall

        > > need more than 20% of GDP for education, not 6%. Therefore three goals of
        > > (i) 'school education of ALL', (ii) paying 'VIth Pay Commission" salary to
        > > ALL teachers, and (iii) proportionate allocation of funds to elementary,
        > > seconday and higher education, are impossible to meet. Something has to be
        > > given up.
        > >
        > > 1B: There is a lot of evidence that India has large number of educated
        > > citizens, potential teachers, who are willing to work at a fraction of VIth
        > > pay commission's salary, and these people have shown to be as effective as
        > > school teachers as the teachers earning VIth Pay Commission salary, for
        > > lower primary classes.
        > >
        > > Given above, and (i) my preference to treat the welfare of all citizens of
        > > the country as equal, both already employed as teachers and those seeking
        > > job as teachers, and (ii) my committment to educate ALL children, I
        > > recommend a school system, at present, with lower teacher salary than
        > > prescribed in VIth Pay Commission.
        > >
        > > *2. Economics-Budge*t: Angela and others have given certain numbers, but
        > > which do not contest (i) my EPW analysis/data, and that (ii) Indian *public
        > > spending* on elementary education @ 2.2% of GDP, *already matches OECD
        > > norm*, feasible with total public spending of 5.5-6% of GDP on education,
        > > and that Indian *public+private spending* on elementary education *
        > > exceeds* OECD norm of *public+private spending* on elementary (Grade

        > > 1-8) education.
        > >
        > > I personally believe that (i) India can/will not allocate more than 6% of
        > > GDP as public education spending, and also (ii) India needs to increase its
        > > budget for secondary and higher education in proportion to its budget on
        > > elementary education.* Therefore*, the current-future goal *for
        > > elementary education policy* should be not to seek more funds but the

        > > better use of existing spending, both public and private. I also support
        > > that the budget for secondary and higher education must be increased
        > > substantially, as these indeed are much lower than worldwide norm.
        > >
        > > 3. *Notions about Society/ Development/ Citizen ship and implication of
        > > these on the design of Education* *Policy*; of Surjeet, SSR, Anshumala
        > > and many others.
        > >
        > > These issues can and will continue to be debated for ever, *were debated

        > > by the Constituent Assembly and are debated continuously by our Parliament
        > > *. The role of Educational Planners is to* not to place themselves above
        > > these forums of our society/ country*, and debate these afresh. Instead,

        > > Education planners should simply take as the 'current set of laws and
        > > constitution' as* the settled outcome of such debates*, and ensure that

        > > their plans/ recommendations are consistent with the settled position, i.e.
        > > current laws. If our constitution-laws allow for private education, there
        > > is no point debating its utility outside the Parliament.
        > >
        > > I do not consider myself and members of this forum as more competent than
        > > our Constituent Assembly or our Parliament, and *therefore consider it
        > > meaningless for us to debate this*. Insteasd, we should take-accept our
        > > constitution and laws as these exist, and *plan our education curriculum
        > > and policies consistent with the approved laws of the land*, which

        > > incidentlly include (i) equality of opportunities for all, (ii) RTE for
        > > all, (iii) secularism, or Sarv Dharm Sambhav, (iv) freedom & liberty, (vi)
        > > rational-scientific temper. *So, what is there to debate about? * If our

        > > constitution-laws allow for private education, there is little point in
        > > debating its utility outside the Parliament.
        > >
        > > 4. *Private vs. public sector*: I do not consider public sector or public

        > > employees to be inherently superior or committed to public good compared to
        > > those citizens who are not currently employed by the Govt., which are more
        > > than 90% of our population, including the children and retired or out of
        > > job. So, I do not ascribe negative motive to private sector, by definition,
        > > and like to examine the performance of both sectors on the basis of
        > > available reliable data, not on the basis of pre-conceived notions.
        > >
        > > Just to clarify, the paper forwarded to you about Adam Smith was not
        > > written by my friend or reflected my views. It, however, provided an
        > > interesting viewpoint, worth considering.
        > >
        > > Warms.
        > >
        > > Pankaj
        > >
        > >
        > > --- On *Mon, 3/18/13, Janaki Rajan <rajan.janaki@...>* wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From: Janaki Rajan <rajan.janaki@...>

        > > Subject: Re: [Arkitect India] Re: [highschoolscience] Fw: Mumbai Shikshan
        > > Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th March 2013.
        > > To: arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Monday, March 18, 2013, 1:07 AM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > I think there are several questions to Pankaj that he has not responded to
        > > over several mails over several months. Briefly, this is about refusing to
        > > respond to anything uncomfortable, but nevertheless continue his well worn
        > > diatribe. At each point he has been addressed factually by several members
        > > none of whom he has responded to. Please refer to:
        > > -my mail to him about his diatribe on teacher salaries
        > > -Surjit's mail about idea of society, and today's excellent mail, and my
        > > own mail that if not idea of society, accept Constitution
        > > -SSR's succint comments
        > > -Angela's brilliant note in response to Pankaj's economic/GDP notions.
        > > -My review on Adam Smith to an article Pankaj sent from his friends
        > > from USA
        > >
        > > His last mail sent to my personal mail ID was that all that we are saying
        > > is alright for children in Rishi Valley kind of school, [because their
        > > parents can pay for it] but not for the children of the deprived who have
        > > to be paid for by the State-for them, and I believe that Pankaj is voicing
        > > this opinion of many many people in power, let us get 'efficient', with
        > > the schooling of children of the marginalised-the same 'efficiency' not
        > > required if people can pay for it.
        > >
        > > In other words, Pankaj is making it very clear that all the good things in
        > > education is for those who can pay for it.
        > >
        > > This is so vile that I wish to move a resolution to the group:
        > >
        > > Pankaj should respond to the queries posed to his posts which he has been
        > > sidelining.
        > >
        > > Janaki
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:05 AM, <juristashok@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > **
        > >
        > > ** I fully agree with Dr Sarwat Ali.
        > > Ashok Agarwal
        > > Sent on my BlackBerry� from Vodafone
        > > ------------------------------
        > > *From: * Sarwat Ali <ali.sarwat@...>
        > > *Sender: * arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com
        > > *Date: *Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:40:50 +0530
        > > *To: *<arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com>
        > > *ReplyTo: * arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com
        > > *Subject: *Re: [Arkitect India] Re: [highschoolscience] Fw: Mumbai

        > > Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyan - State-wide Protest Day on 16th
        > > March 2013.
        > >
        > >
        > > The text is seen as junk in my mail perhaps the hindi font is not
        > > supported by my computer.
        > >
        > >
        > > Private schools are not functioning well, in fact the parents and the
        > > families, children come from, are immense support to private schools,
        > > besides the infrastructure is another reason. govt schools will not
        > > function well it is by design and not accidental, they will not function
        > > well unless private schools or lets say profit making market oriented
        > > institutions, are abolished. Private institutions are unable to mange 25%
        > > of weaker section Where as govt schools are managing 100% of weaker
        > > section children with limited infrastructure. The mess in admissions in
        > > private schools in nursery is unmanageable. There is no way private
        > > institutions can achieve universalisation of education. They are
        > > violating constitutional norms
        > >
        > > --
        > > Dr (Ms) sarwat ali
        > > pocket A/3C sukhdev Vihar , DDA Flats,
        > > New Delhi - 110025
        > >
        > > 9810525317
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > --
        > And may you be blessed with the foolishness to think that you can make a
        > difference in the world, so that you will do things which others tell you
        > cannot be done!

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.