[eebill] FW: Kids Interview Case [from Social Jurist]

[Gita Dewan Verma]

// news report at: 
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=112998

>From: "Ashok" <socialjur at mantraonline.com>
>To: "Gita Diwan Verma TownPlanner" <purplepapaya36 at hotmail.com>, "Ghanshyam 
>JUDAV" <judav_jharkhand at yahoo.com>, "Gerry Pinto UNICEF" 
><gpinto at unicef.org>, "Geeta" <geeta at cemd.org>, "gaysu arvind" 
><cosmic at vsnl.com>
>Subject: Kids Interview Case
>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:15:21 +0530
>
>
>
>Dear friend,
>
>         This affidavit on behalf of Social Jurist has been filed in Delhi 
>High Court on 03.01.2005.
>
>Ashok Agarwal
>Advocate
>9811101923
>
>
>
>IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
>L.P.A. No. 196 of 2004
>
>
>
>
>In the matter of:
>
>
>
>Shri Rakesh Goel and Others                                                 
>         ..Appellants
>
>
>
>Vs.
>
>
>
>Montfort School & Others                                                    
>       ..Respondents
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Affidavit on behalf of Social Jurist, A Lawyers
>
>Group in response to the suggestions filed on
>
>behalf of the Learned Attorney General of India
>
>
>
>
>
>I, Ritu Jain, Advocate d/o Shri S.K. Jain, aged 32 years, Coordinator, 
>Social Jurist, A lawyers group, 479, Lawyers' Chambers, Western Wing, Tis 
>Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-
>
>
>
>
>
>1.                     I say that the Social Jurist is a group of lawyers 
>dedicated to the cause of the children and the working people.  It is 
>submitted that the Social Jurist in the past five years has taken up 
>several issues of public importance pertaining to the right and equal 
>opportunity in education of the children through public interest 
>litigations and also through other democratic ways available to them.  It 
>is submitted that the Social Jurist has a bonafide interest in this matter, 
>as the outcome of the present litigation would affect the right and 
>question of equality in education not only in Delhi but also in the entire 
>country.  I also say that I am fully conversant with facts and 
>circumstances of the present case and I am competent and authorized to file 
>the present affidavit on behalf of the Social Jurist.
>
>
>
>2.                     I say that before giving his suggestions, the 
>learned A.G. has given a gist of affidavits filed by some individuals and 
>organisations.  I submit that basically three points have been made in 
>these affidavits. First, in some affidavits, it has been admitted that 
>children are being tested and interviewed. Second, in many cases, it has 
>been asserted that schools have 'right to choose' children. Third, in most 
>of the cases 'interactions/interviews' with parents have been argued for 
>and the idea of draw of lots have been declared 'unscientific' and 'not 
>feasible'.
>
>
>
>3.                     I say that even the AG in his submissions has 
>negated testing and interviewing children as it is totally unreliable and 
>it makes children suffer trauma and psychological scare. Hence, it may be 
>banned forthwith.
>
>
>
>4.                     I further say that 'right to choose children' by 
>schools cannot become discriminatory as school is a public institution and 
>it has to follow a transparent, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory policy 
>of admission in conformity with the law of the land and national education 
>policies. Hence, the argument that schools have 'right to choose' children 
>as parents have 'right to choose' schools do not have any merit and may be 
>dismissed.
>
>
>
>5.                     I submit that interactions and interviews as being 
>done in schools are nothing more than ways to show favoritism and bias to 
>certain individuals or category of parents. Schools do not announce any 
>transparent criteria for such interactions; they ask children to be brought 
>along, who are either separated to be 'observed' causing tremendous trauma 
>and mental torture to the young kids, or in many cases they are made to sit 
>between the two parents and watch them being interviewed and grilled.  In 
>the affidavits, it has not been clarified how schools short-list the 
>parents to be interviewed. The favoritism and arbitrariness begins from 
>there itself. If the parents are to be interviewed, why schools ask for the 
>children to be brought on that day needs to be explained.
>
>
>
>6.                     I say that, before we give our comments on the 
>suggestions made by the learned A.G., these suggestions have not been given 
>after consulting a range of educationists and educational policy analysts 
>and practitioners in the country. Only two persons from Britain, two 
>psychologists and one working with an international agency have been 
>consulted. I submit that such an important issue has to be decided in the 
>light of a wider consultation and in the light of the national policy, the 
>constitutional rights, social justice and the principle of equal 
>educational opportunity for each child.
>
>
>
>7.                     I say that this is a major policy, constitutional 
>and educational issue and ought to be considered accordingly. That judging 
>of intelligence at any age is highly contested worldwide. It is not an 
>inherent qualification acquired by a child by birth or otherwise. It is a 
>social and cultural construct, a time variant and should not be guiding 
>admission process of a child into schools at any age, and definitely not up 
>to age 14, up to which the child has equal fundamental right to education.
>
>
>
>  8.                    I say that the countries across the world 
>respecting the principle of equality and the human rights of a child do not 
>resort to any type of sorting or selection at any stage of school age. In 
>our country, it should be banned up to age 14, at least, as this is the age 
>up to which every child has equal fundamental right to education.
>
>
>
>9.                     I say that the best option is to limit or notify a 
>school's neighbourhood so that number of applications is drastically 
>reduced. This option has been argued for by the Public Study Group 
>consisting of the academics and educational experts constituted to help the 
>committees of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). The 
>government should open more schools so that children in every neighborhood 
>have sufficient places and number of applications is not very high.
>
>
>
>10.                   I say that Nehru's 'scientific temper' approach, as 
>referred to in the submissions filed on behalf of the learned A.G., has to 
>be appreciated appropriately. The way private schools conduct interviews, 
>tests or interactions are neither scientific nor would it inculcate 
>scientific temper in young kids, because it begins with a bias to the 
>extent of favoritism and negates the basic principle that at that age all 
>children should be given equal chances to access similar education 
>irrespective the birth and background, and this is what the Constitution of 
>India proclaims. Professor Yash Pal in his recent interview in one of the 
>national dailies says, "scientific temper does not arise from science and 
>technology. It's a sociological attribute."
>
>
>
>11.                   I say that the draw by lot is far more scientific and 
>rational than any other system. It is based on the statistical theory of 
>probability so that each child would stand equal chance of being 'selected' 
>irrespective of his/her caste, creed and background, eliminating the chance 
>of arbitrariness, favoritism and looking into parental background under the 
>current practice in the name of interactions. Further, it would make 
>students population truly diverse, which many schools argue for. Those who 
>want and believe in fatalist view of life and fortunetellers would go to 
>seers and sadhus anyway. It is a mindset and has nothing to do with draw of 
>lots, which can't be predicted by any seers except the theory of 
>probability. Hence, on this account, it is argued that draw of lot would be 
>the most scientific and should be resorted to for admissions up to the age 
>14.
>
>
>
>  12.                  I say that the Indian situation cannot be compared 
>with Britain or other countries only on one aspect, as made out in the 
>learned A.G's suggestions on the basis of experts from the Manchester 
>University; in this case 'interactions' with parents as done by the private 
>schools over there. The nature and practice of parental interactions abroad 
>have got to be corroborated and authenticated. Besides, the percentage of 
>private schools is far less in foreign countries; it is not growing as in 
>India at the cost of government schools and with direct and hidden 
>subsidies from the state. The central government in its 'National Plan of 
>Action for Education for All' has announced its intention to regulate the 
>private schools. Besides, the neighbourhood schooling principles prevail in 
>the developed as well as in most developing countries.
>
>
>
>  13.                  I say that there is absolutely no reason why the 
>principle of 3 km as laid down under regulation of the Delhi Education Act 
>should not be enforced, and why it should be further extended to 5 km or 
>than to 8 km. If the area of a school is further extended there would be 
>more applications and it would be more torturous for the children to cover 
>longer distances. In fact the appropriate authority should duly notify the 
>neighbourhood for each school, which must not exceed 1km for young children 
>as laid down in the national policy.
>
>
>
>14.                   I say that the AG's suggestion regarding the 25% 
>seats to be filled in under the management quota seems beyond the purview 
>of the current petition. In the absence of the system of draw of lots or 
>the neighbourhood schooling, the management is already filling in all the 
>seats, so a reasonable percentage of discretion could be considered only if 
>the strict principle of neighbourhood system of schooling and/or the system 
>of draw of lots is introduced.
>
>
>
>15.                   I say further that learned A.G's suggestions have not 
>taken into account the National Policy of Education, recommendations of the 
>earlier commissions and committees and principles and spirit of the Indian 
>Constitution, which do not favour any type of sorting and selection of 
>young children as referred to by the Public Study Group in its affidavit.
>
>
>
>  16.                  I say that none of the affidavits has kept in view 
>the interests of children with disabilities who have equal rights to study 
>in mainstream schools, and also suggestions do not consider how their 
>rights would be secured when schools are allowed free hand in selection of 
>children by way of interactions with parents or otherwise. Further, a 
>'right to choose' children is being misused for excluding children on the 
>grounds of learning disabilities and other types of disabilities, and also 
>for creating a huge market and business for 'professionals' emerging in 
>this 'field'. I submit that whatever order is passed by this Hon'ble Court, 
>  the rights of these children to study in inclusive school environments 
>and rights to exercise their choice to do so must be kept into 
>consideration.
>
>    Deponent
>
>Verification:
>
>
>
>Verified at Delhi on this 3rd day of January 2005 that the facts and 
>submissions made in the above affidavit are correct and true to my 
>knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
>
>
>
>
>
>Deponent
>

_________________________________________________________________
Pep up your screen! Kickstart your day! 
http://www.msn.co.in/Cinema/screensaver/ Get these vibrant screensavers!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SJ1affidavittoAGsuggestions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 32768 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.architexturez.net/pipermail/eebill/attachments/20050106/f1298600/SJ1affidavittoAGsuggestions-0001.doc