Mr.T.Mark
There was a misinformation that Meghalaya did not have an Education Policy. The cabinet on 19th January 2009 had approved the policy. The question today, is whether that policy is still relevant. Many confuse between a Policy and a Programme of Action (POA).A policy is a mere statement of intent and a broad vision for the people of the state to redeem their true potential, rich but largely untapped. True there was no POA to implement the policy except in a few cases, that also on an adhoc basis. In chapter 9 of the State Education Policy, 2009 we read, “The existing multi-layered system of grant-in-aid which is highly skewed in favour of the institutions under the deficit system is undesirable and should be progressively abolished by reducing the categories of grant-in-aid. The ultimate goal in this area is to have a uniform system for grant-in-aid.” So far there is no POA on this.
Inside the classroom, a dedicated teacher whose only interest is his students, is oblivious of the pay and the perks he receives. It’s only when he enters the common room or at the end of the month that he begins to think why parents or the management is blind to the sweat and the services he has rendered. It all started when the private school signed a contract with him with the only condition that his services will be paid at an amount agreed upon at the end of the month. This contract becomes complicated when the school starts getting government grants. Monthly payment or non-payment to the teacher is linked with getting the grant. It’s obvious that the management is responsible for breaking the contract and cannot blame the government for non receipt of the grant in time. It may be a crude analogy to compare a domestic worker in the house of a government employee agitating against the government for non receipt of salary just because the government employee did not receive his/her salary on time. The government in its books of account has always treated the grant given to schools as a non-committed expenditure. To the government a grant is only a grant. If it doesn’t have the money the grant can be denied, reduced or delayed. The poor teacher is left in the lurch. Either he/she has to choose another school or change his/her profession. The die- hard will take it upon themselves to agitate against the government to release the grant. This is the position of school teachers in the state since its inception.
Funding institutions is an area which has left many lay people confused and mind- boggled. We have a multi-layered system of grants-in-aid like deficit grant in aid, deficit pattern, adhoc, improved adhoc, SSA etc. The purpose behind is no doubt to help the schools but one would agree that it has brought unjustified discrimination between teachers in different schools having similar qualification and enough student enrolment. One would agree that government is seen in bad light whenever teachers come out in the streets to demand their hard earned salary which is their due. The public have all the sympathy for them. Nobody thinks of the original contract the management had with the teachers. Who broke this sacrosanct contract? The teachers or the management? Fortunately or unfortunately government becomes the victim in this tussle and is un-necessarily dragged into many court cases involving the teachers of these schools. There are two basic reasons for this. In terms of grant- in- aid, sometime the government has bitten more than it can chew, and in most cases it is due more to reason of politics than of educational priorities or economics and in terms of control it has taken the unnecessary responsibility of approving their appointment. One still wonders if this amounts to abrogating the contract, the management had with the teacher.
The in-thing is the private-public mode(PP mode).One would say it is already in existence in Meghalaya as far as education is concerned. More than 70 % of institutions in the state are non-government institutions. Government should be grateful to these NGOs for undertaking to share the bulk of the burden. One can imagine how much Government would have had to spend in infrastructure and other expenditure in running these institutions let alone salaries. The issue is to examine how government can distance itself from these non-government institutions and also to examine how to streamline funding so that we have only one type of funding and other service conditions in such institutions.
The proposed provincialisation of schools is one attempt where non-government schools becomes government schools lock stock and barrel. The merit-demerit between government and non government school is public knowledge and it needs no elaboration. Moreover there will be schools which do not want to be provincialised like the schools run by faith based organisations and the like. Hence there will still be multiplicity of grants-in-aid schools in the state with their inherent problems. The second alternative is to provincialise only the services of the teachers. The common understanding is that all salary and allowances of the teachers will be paid by government while the management of the school is left to the sponsoring body. The moot question is who is the appointing authority? The government or the management? Students of management know that the payment authority is also the appointing authority and the terminating authority. The teachers will be left with a big doubt whether to be loyal to the government or the management. Always a dual loyalty is a divided loyalty and bad management.
The ideal is to have only two types of schools – government and non-government. And for non-government we have only one type of grant. The most important question is how do we bring all schools enjoying different grants at present into one type of grant. Here we need out of the box solutions. One possible solution is as follows:
1.All viable schools be given fixed grant in aid at the rate of the minimum basic pay of the government scales of pay of the corresponding teachers, HSS, SS, UPS, LPS. There is no increment. But whenever government revises the pay scales the same is applicable to non- government schools. Government has to lay down criteria to define the viability of a school.
- This rate is calculated per teacher and total entitlement should be one teacher to thirty students(1:30).This includes Head and Asst. Head.
- In addition to this fixed grant- in- aid the school is also entitled to DA as given to government employees from time to time.
- By this calculation schools which receive adhoc grant will get enhanced grant but schools which receive deficit grant will get reduced grant. How do we solve this problem? The teachers in these schools drawing basic pay higher than the minimum will continue to draw the same rate till they retire or resign. The moment the post becomes vacant it is converted to the grant at the minimum rate. This may take some time but one day all would be under one type of grant only.
- With Management Information System(MIS) in place it will be easy for government to know the quantum of grant for disbursement and it should be treated as a committed expenditure.
- There is a small rider to this proposal. It involves schools with excess teachers and unviable schools. Since the school has to be viable, it has to abide by the general rule governing this grant.
The next question is the system of checks and balances and service rules of teachers. There should not be any ambiguity that the grant is given in the name of the school and not the teachers. The management is responsible for the utilization of the grant-in-aid and running of the schools according to government management rules. The contract or appointment letter to the teacher should be duly documented. The government is only to lay down minimum educational qualifications. It will have no hand in approving or disapproving the teacher’s appointment. The teachers are the employees of the management and they are accountable to it. The management rules will lay down conditions of discipline, termination etc and if there is dispute, the court will be the final authority to dispose off such cases.
The management is also subjected to management rules of government. One important condition is that the school should have its own land and building and have endowment or reserve funds equivalent to four months salary. The grant may be withdrawn if they violate management provisions. The provisions will also include disciplining their employees and students. The grant may be withdrawn if the school becomes unviable after being given due opportunity to correct itself.
Now that government has shared all the burden of salary, the provision of infrastructure and other requirements of the school have to be provided by the management. RTE rules do not allow school fees but do not prevent parents from giving goodwill donation to improve their schools. However, the management may be allowed to raise funds by donation with the consent of the parents at the parent-teachers meeting. This additional fund could also be extended to the teachers to avail the EPF and ESI schemes as part of their social security service.
(The author is former Director, Education, Govt of Meghalaya)
oooOooo