FEE ISSUE HOTS UP IN DELHI

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARENTS ASSOCIATION, DELHI - 

DEBATING SCHOOL FEE

When Government can run its schools with a particular amount of expenditure, we see no reason as to why an unaided private school charge fee from the fee-paying parents more than the amount of expenditure per child spent by the Government on its students. If any unaided school still claims higher amount of fee, such school has to satisfy the Directorate of Education on the basis of its financial records.

The Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education by its circular dated 21.03.2012 has approved an amount up to Rs.1190/- as expenditure per-child per month on elementary education for re-imbursement to private unaided schools during session 2011-12 in respect of students admitted from economically weaker section and disadvantaged groups. It has also been decided that no re-imbursement shall be made to schools, which have been allotted land by Government at concessional rates to the extent, schools are under obligation to admit students from weaker section as per terms and conditions of the Lease/ Land allotment Letter.

It is interesting to note that the said amount of Rs. 1190/- is based on the fact that the Government of Delhi in the academic year 2011-2012 has spent Rs.1190/- per child per month on the elementary education of the students studying in their own schools. We all know that the Government of Delhi, Directorate of Education has a huge physical and academic infrastructure. All the teaching and non-teaching staffs are paid Pay and Emoluments as per the Recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. We also know that lot of financial wastage takes place in the Government management system. Keeping all these facts in to considerations, it is submitted that the expenditure figure of Rs. 1190/- per child per month can be safely taken as an ideal figure also for the purpose of payment of school Fee per child in unaided private schools by the Fee-paying parents.

The issue that required to be highlighted is that if the Government can run its school with an expenditure of Rs.1190/- per child per month, what is the justification for the unaided private schools to not to be able to run their schools with the same amount of expenditure. It is submitted that unaided private schools should not ask the Fee paying parents to pay school fee more than what is spent by the Government on its students studying in its own schools in a particular State. We are of a strong view that the demand of a fee amount from the Fee- paying students more than that spent by the Government on its own students is totally unjustified. However, if any unaided private school finds that the amount of Rs.1190/- is less than what is actually required from the fee paying students, then they should approach the government and satisfy the Government based upon the audit of their annual financial accounts, that the school is indeed incurring an expenditure more than the amount specified by the Government in its own schools annually and therefore, eligible to charge higher fee based upon the expenditure incurred.

It may be kept in mind that in view of the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of CWP 17752/2005 titled Navdeep Kaur Gill & others v/.s Government of Punjab it was held that the Fee structure should be based upon the expenditure on the minimum infrastructure required for the recognition of the institute. In case, the Educational Society wishes to provide extra facilities it may do so from its own resources. This way there will not be extra burden on the parents of the students. It is also pertinent to mention here that now-a- days most of the schools are getting in to a sort of rat race to make their Schools Air Conditioned and charging exorbitant Fee from the parents. In its report, the Raghvan committee has expressed their strong opinion against the making schools with Five Star Facilities. They have recommended that such five star culture will not create conducive atmosphere for the educational purpose and it will create divide among the section of the society.

Therefore it is stressed that the amount so decided by the government sufficient for the re-imbursement is also sufficient for the schools to charge from the Fee paying students.

These are the views that the All India Parents Association believes in.

For any suggestion or feed back please write back to isgambhir@gmail.com

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate

National President, All India Parents Association

M-09811101923

WHEN CONSENT IS OBTAINED UNDER THREAT OR COERCION, IT IS RAPE

The first loophole that the schools obtained in the matter of Fee Determination in Tamil Nadu Schools was by the Committee’s relaxation that the determined fees will not include fees for any other extracurricular activities, transport, books…etc.  This provision, the school managements made maximum (mis) use of by collecting whatever they felt like, terming them as fees for extra-curricular, smart class, books, etc.

The Fee Determination committee under Justice S.R.Singaravelan has consistently held in the case of several cases that extracurricular activities cannot be compulsory and hence is only optional.  Schools are not to compel parents to accept all their extracurricular activities.  

The District Collector of Coimbatore also has very clearly stated in the minuted meeting conducted on 10.3.2012 with the representatives of the Parents Association as well as the managements of the schools in Coimbatore that extra fees than determined by the Committee should not be collected and if any fees is levied towards any extracurricular activities, it should not be compulsory.

Now, it is reported that various schools are adopting various dirty methods, including threatening the parents that  their children will be failed or asking parents to take their wards out of the schools, if they are not prepared to pay the fees determined by the school in violation of the committee’s decision (read to accept the so called extracurricular activities).

Forcibly getting consent does not make it consensual and hence would qualify to be termed as ‘RAPE’.

We hope the protectors of law will look at it appropriately taking into consideration the safety of young children who are put to test.

RTE vs APARTHEID MIND SET

We had anticipated that with the Government enacting a law on the Right to Education, implementation of the Right to Education enshrined in the Constitution will get implemented. When the enactment came, of course, we were disappointed that it did not fulfill the ‘free and compulsory education for all children from the age of 6 to 14’.  It attempted only to cover 25% from the economically weak. (Pl see our views in earlier pages on this)  The mechanism that would determine the economic weakness also was subject to various doubts.  Yet, since the journey of even a thousand miles has to start only with the first step, this was looked upon by us as a welcome move.

But the private school managements saw red.  They said that the RTE cannot be implemented.  If it is implemented, the fee paying parents will have to take the burden of the free education also, they threatened.  This argument itself raises several questions.  Chiefly, when these educational institutions are registered as Trusts for charitable/educational purposes, when they profess that they are in the field of education as a ‘service’ to the society, should not they themselves have adopted some mechanism whereby some children in each institution gets free education?  Though they themselves failed to do so, at least when the Parliament enacted a law requiring them do so, they were expected to do so ‘graciously’.

The managements wanted to exercise their legal right and went to court on the issue.  Of late, we have seen that on various legislations, the school managements have been going to the Courts at the cost of, of course the money collected from the parents.  Whether in the case against fixation of fees or implementation of Uniform Syllabus, in Tamil Nadu, they failed before the highest judicial forum of the land.  In the case of RTE also therefore there was little wonder that they went to court.

But when the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a judgment written by the Chief Justice himself upheld the RTE and directed the schools to start following it from this year itself (2012-13) the school managements were expected to take things seriously and start the process of admissions as per the RTE Act and the instructions of the Government in this regard.

But, we hear from media reports that the managements are yet to get satisfied.  They want to exercise their right of going for a review.  This, in our opinion, taking into consideration the bahaviour of the managements in the previous cases, can be seen only as an attempt to postpone the implementation of the scheme from this year itself.  In the first place, they should not have filled up the vacancies before the verdict was out.  Any admission without adhering to the provisions of the RTE, when there was no stay by any Court against its provisions is itself failure to abide by the law.  Hence, we hope that now the Government at the Center and at the State will issue strict instructions that the provisions have to be implemented immediately, in the absence of any stay.

No quarrels over the managements using their right, though as pointed earlier, it is at the expense of the hard earned money collected from the parents, but what is disturbing is their attitude and posers.

Their repeated argument that when there is a government school in the vicinity, the children under RTE cannot be admitted into private schools, is like saying that certain people shall not board a private bus if government busses are plying in the same route.  This attitude is nothing else but open and defiant proclamation of an attitude of ‘apartheid’.  This attitude will also threaten the society from discrimination of these children within the campus. 

When these institutions came and sought the recognition of the government for running schools in the name of assisting the government/society in the field of imparting of education, now to talk as if they are a parallel government, and dodging implementation of an enactment even after the apex court has held it up, is nothing short of exhibition of defiance, rebellion and greed.

We are reminded of the poem of Rabindranath Tagore in the ‘Gitanjali’:

When it was day they came into my house and said, `We shall only take the smallest room here.' 

They said, `We shall help you in the worship of your God and humbly accept only our own share in his grace'; and then they took their seat in a corner and they sat quiet and meek. 

But in the darkness of night I find they break into my sacred shrine, strong and turbulent, and snatch with unholy greed the offerings from God's altar.

High time, the real owner of the house wakes up. 

One small step in that direction will be to bring into these Trusts into the ambit of the Right to Information Act, because, it is public money which is being used against public interest.