Almost all state governments ” except Karnataka ” are in favour of repealing s.16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which mandates automatic promotion of all children enroled in classes I-VIII. This was confirmed by a statement issued by the newly reconstituted Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), which held its first meeting (after the swearing-in of the BJP/NDA government at the Centre in May 2014) on August 19.
But playing it safe, Union human resource development (HRD) minister Smriti Irani has directed state governments to send their comments vis-a-vis s.16 to the ministry by September. According to sources within the HRD ministry, the erstwhile UPA government™s decision making the class X school-leaving exam optional is also under review.
Ab initio after the RTE Act became law on April 1, 2010, reservations were expressed about the impact of s.16 on the country™s primary education system notorious for poor learning outcomes, as reported routinely by the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) surveys conducted by the Mumbai-based NGO, Pratham. These misgivings escalated into protests forcing CABE to establish a sub-committee headed by then Haryana education minister, Geeta Bhukkal, to examine the pros and cons of s.16. In September 2013, the sub-committee recommended a review of s.16. œIn absence of ground preparation (sic), the intentions of the provision have not been met at all, says the Bhukkal report. Now 18 months after the BJP/NDA government took charge in Delhi, action is imminent on the recommendations of the sub-committee™s report.
Some educationists see no big deal in bringing back exams and retaining under-performers in the same class. œA line has to be drawn against automatic promotions, whether in class III or class V can be decided later. There™s a consensus within the teachers™ community that automatic promotions are harmful to children and society, says Rachna Pant, principal of Ramjas School, RK Puram, Delhi.
However, notwithstanding overwhelming support for repeal or modification of s.16 within the teachers™ community, some educationists maintain that there™s no connection between exam success and real learning outcomes. Some MPs have recently voiced support for liberal- left academics who oppose dilution of the RTE Act. According to them, there™s a failure in implementation of the Act rather than in the legislation itself. Therefore an amendment to repeal s.16 may not enjoy smooth sailing through a fractious Parliament.
The no-detention debate has been complicated by the introduction of the comprehensive and continuous evaluation (CCE) system mandated by s. 29 (h) of the RTE Act, which was inserted to offset the impact of s.16. Supporters of the RTE Act aruge that CCE was hastily introduced without sufficient training given to teachers. Dr. Anita Rampal, professor of education at Delhi University says that the demand for the repeal of s.16 which dilutes the examinations obsession of school education, is unwarranted. œCCE was not understood well. Manuals produced by CBSE were not sufficient and teachers also never got any meaningful orientation. It was implemented in a traditionalist paradigm, she explains, adding the liberal CCE has degenerated into a system which increases the importance of examinations. œOur system is stuck on remedial measures rather than going for supportive measures, she informed a Times of India reporter (August 21).
Quite patently, the ills of contemporary India™s failing school system are rooted in its pathetic teacher education system which necessitates rigorous testing of students and sucks the joy out of primary education for the overwhelming majority of children in their formative years. Therefore, while in the short-term class X and perhaps even class VIII exams may become necessary, long-term upgradation and stabilisation of the school system requires urgent reform of teacher education.
Autar Nehru (Delhi)

St. Stephen™s loose canon
Of late delhi university™s showpiece St. Stephen™s College (estb.1881) ” routinely ranked the country™s premier liberal arts college ” has been hitting media headlines for all the wrong reasons. On August 19, the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) summoned the college principal the Rt. Rev. Valson Thampu and grilled him for allegedly œshielding Satish Kumar, a chemistry professor at St. Stephen™s accused of sexual harassment by a student hitherto pursuing her doctoral programme under his guidance.
In a complaint filed with DCW, the student alleged œintimidation, forceful confinement and œsabotage or theft of research material by the college/guide, and that Thampu advised her to drop her complaint against Kumar and refused to change her guide. Moreover in a letter to the Union ministry of human resource development (which meets the college™s faculty and staff expenses), the research scholar sought œremoval of the college principal for his inaction.
The Reverend has been at the receiving end of considerable flak in academia for making ill-considered remarks on the social media on this sensitive subject and issuing bon mots in general. For instance, blogging about his post retirement plans he wrote, œAm (sic) strongly tempted to write a potboiler under the title ”The Vixen of Stephenville¦ The plot, though, is with me, readymade and full-grown, complete in all details, on his Facebook page on July 21, deleting it a few hours later.
Controversy is not new to the Rt. Rev. Thampu. In April he came down hard on Devansh Mehta, a third-year philosophy student of the college, for publishing an interview with Thampu in the online St. Stephen™s Weekly without clearing it with him prior to publication. For this sin and reporting Thampu™s ire to the media, Mehta was suspended, prompting him to file a writ in the Delhi high court. Justice Vibhu Bakhru was appalled by Thampu™s overreaction. Revoking the suspension order, the judge pulled up Thampu for his œbehaviour and œlack of sense of humour.
For St. Stephen™s, founded 126 years ago by the Cambridge Brotherhood, an association of Church of England dons of Cambridge University (UK), Thampu has been a dangerous loose canon. Although a minority education institution entitled under Article 30 of the Constitution to reserve upto 49.5 percent of institutional capacity for Christian students, to preserve its liberal secular reputation this highly-venerated college hadn™t invoked this provision for half a century. But, immediately after Thampu was appointed principal in 2007, he introduced a 40 percent quota within the college™s annual intake of 400 students for the country™s 24 million-strong Christian community and carved out a 25 percent sub-quota for Dalit Christians, prompting some Delhi University academics to describe him as a Christian fundamentalist.
œNegative representation of the college in the media has prompted the St. Stephen™s College Staff Council to protest. œThe Council regrets the climate of intimidation and unprofessionalism that is being sought to be introduced which is extremely harmful to the academic culture of the institution. The council calls upon all its members to nurture and respect the professional space and stature of the institution, says a press release dated August 5 signed by Karan Gabriel, professor of English at St. Stephen™s and media coordinator of the council.
Thampu is scheduled to retire on February 16 next year. But six months is perhaps too long a wait for the faculty and students of India™s premier liberal arts college to wish him an untearful adieu.
Swati Roy (Noida)