July 17th, 2009 at 04:09pm
Under Education Law
Dear Mr. President: Your education platform was filled with noble generalities. I suppose you thought you couldn’t get more specific because the No Child Left Behind Law is increasingly unpopular and unworkable, and there is no agreement about how to fix it. It is an issue that doesn’t lend itself to sound bites. To fix NCLB, you must first understand the skills that matter most in the 21st century and the ways in which the NCLB law is actually getting in the way of more meaningful accountability. And then you must invest in accountability “version 2.0.” Problem: Too few students are graduating from high school. The ones who do lack the essential skills they need for college, careers, and citizenship. Nearly one third of our students do not graduate from high school. This problem is not more widely known because states are not held accountable for improving their graduation rates. Additionally, states use different formulas for calculating their districts’ high school graduation rates, and almost all of them significantly overstate the numbers of students who graduate. Florida, for example, claims a seventy percent graduation rate, but the reality is closer to fifty-five percent. The majority of the students who do graduate from our nation’s public high schools are unprepared for college and the workplace. In the 21st century, the skills needed for careers, college, and citizenship have converged: Critical thinking, creative problem-solving, collaboration, and effective communication have become far more important than mere memorization and factual recall. However, at the high school level, states continue to test low level content knowledge and factual recall through multiple choice tests, and a passing score in even the most “rigorous” of these tests, such as the Massachusetts MCAS test, does not mean students are career and college-ready. Forty percent of the students who pass MCAS need remediation in college. Nationally, one out of every two students who starts college never completes a degree, and the main reason for this poor completion rate is students’ lack of college-level skills, not lack of subject content knowledge. Similarity, employers complain that most new employees lack proficiency in the “new basic” skills outlined above. Solution: The Department of Education should hold schools and districts accountable for their graduation rates and assess the skills that matter most. The Department of Education should require all school districts and states in the U.S. to report their high school graduation rates according to a common formula. To ensure that schools teach the skills that matter most, the Department of Education should “audit” school districts’ performance by testing representative sample populations of students with assessments that measure the most important skills. For example, the College and Work Readiness Assessment measures high school students’ analytic reasoning, critical thinking, problem-solving, and writing skills and compares them to the scores of freshmen in 250 colleges. (www.cae.org). Scores from tests like these will tell us whether our country is making progress in increasing the percentages of students who leave high school “college and work ready.” Scores of subgroups of students would be reported, as they are under the current law, to ensure that districts teach all students new skills. To create greater accountability, the Department of Education should issue and widely publicize an annual “report card” for every school district in the country. This short document would simply report the percent of students who graduate and the percent who graduate college-ready by subgroup. Transparency is a far more powerful way to create greater accountability than are the largely meaningless threats in the current law. States would then have the responsibility to develop strategies for helping their under-performing districts to improve. Problem: The accountability measurements for Adequate Yearly Progress incents states and districts to create a boring, dumbed-down, test prep curriculum, and there is no common standard for “proficient.” One major problem with the NCLB law is the unrealistic expectation that every school will improve the number of students who score “proficient” by a certain percent every year until 100 percent of the students in the nation are proficient by 2014. This expectation leads to two widespread practices: 1) Many states, like Mississippi and Wisconsin, create easy tests where the standard of “proficiency” is such a low bar that most students can pass; 2) To ensure that more students pass state tests, districts require teachers to teach the test content and give frequent practice tests, leaving no time for more interesting or enriching learning opportunities. Increasingly in this country, what gets tested is all that gets taught. The second major problem with the law is that it allows the standard of “proficiency” to be set by each state. So there are, in fact, fifty different standards of proficiency in this country. For example, students in Mississippi, who have traditionally been among the least literate in this country, are more “proficient” in reading than students in Minnesota, according to the two states’ test scores. Because the states’ standards vary so widely, their test scores tell us absolutely nothing about what students really know and can do. Solution: Create a national high school writing test, benchmark districts’ and states’ yearly progress to a common international standard, and make the unit of accountability the district, rather than individual students. Lack of writing skills is the number one complaint of both employers and college teachers. However, many states are no longer testing writing because they are not required to, and writing tests are expensive and time-consuming to score. To the extent that some states, like Massachusetts, test students’ writing, it is by requiring high school students merely to write a five paragraph essay. The solution is for the federal government to administer a two hour writing exam to demographic sample populations of eleventh graders in all states, as is done in many European countries. The essay question for the writing exam would be based on a major event or document in American History. For example: “Discuss the causes of the civil war and the ways in which these causes continue to influence current events in this country;” Or, “Which of the first ten amendments (which would be reproduced on the test) do you think is most important for a strong democracy and why.” The second solution to the lack of common standards is to use the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test results as the benchmark for progress in states’ education improvement efforts. American students are significantly outperformed by students in most other industrial nations, in part because the PISA tests require very little recall of information and much more application of knowledge to new problems. These are the skills that matter most in the real world, but they are not ones our students learn in their multiple choice world. The incentive for states to improve their education outcomes is economic. States and school communities that have very low PISA scores, which would be widely publicized by the Department of Education, will not attract or keep businesses that demand all employees have 21st century skills. Finally, in order for states to be able to afford much higher quality tests, like the CWRA and PISA, they should no longer be required to test every student every year. State and district accountability can achieved by testing sample populations of students every year — a kind of educational audit. To do well on such tests, districts and schools would need to create local assessments for every student that were aligned with the new state and national tests. Each teacher would be regularly assessing all of his or her students to ensure that students who might be among those randomly chosen for the state and national tests would be well-prepared. Accountability 2.0 would focus schools and districts on preparing students for meaningful assessments which measure the skills that matter most in the 21st century. To prepare for these new tests, all students would be taught how to write, reason, analyze, pose thoughtful questions and solve problems. In short, they would learn the skills they need for college, careers, and citizenship, and they would be engaged in challenging and interesting work in their classes. Doing anything less that a version 2.0 of our accountability system puts our students’ and our country’s future at stake. ©2008 Tony Wagner
Tony Wagner is the co director of the Change Leadership Group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His most recent book, The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach The New Survival Skills Our Kids Need — And What We Can Do About It, has just been published by Basic Books. Tony can be reached through his website:
www.schoolchange.org
July 13th, 2009 at 06:20am
Under Appeals and Writs
From Mr. R.S. Praveen Raj, http://secularcitizen.net/
Right to Information viz. RTI is a part of fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, which says that every citizen has freedom of speech and expression. The people cannot express themselves unless they know what’s happening in the systems that govern them. Every citizen, being the tax payee has the authority as the masters in a democratic system to know how the government bodies and public authorities, meant to serve them, are functioning.
But it is quite unfortunate that the Government authorities are still hesitant to part with the information under their control. It is in this context that the recently passed ‘Right to Information Act’ becomes very significant. Right to Information Act, 2005 is a public drafted legislation to set out a mechanism to avail information in the hands of Public authorities and Government Officials. It does not confer any new right, but simply lays down the procedures on how to apply for information under the control of public authorities, and how to avail it.
The preamble of Right to Information Act, 2005 says – “Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed”. As sounded by its preamble, the Act envisages a corruption-free and transparent governance and polity. The Act covers not only the Executive, but the judiciary and the legislature also. It extends to the entire gamut of central, state and local government systems including those bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by government and also those Non-government organizations substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by government. Information relating to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority also comes under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005.
The RTI Act defines “Information” as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, and data material held in any electronic form. It is interesting to learn that “Right to Information” also covers
Inspection of work, documents, records; taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material. It implies that any citizen can exercise his right to invigilate the transparency and accountability of governance or even insist that a particular civil work be performed in his presence. Any citizen can avail a copy of every bill settled from funds controlled by any of the public authorities and even the statement of accounts of every activity/project/event funded or organized by the Public Authority. Public authority is also obliged to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons, and publish all relevant facts while formulating important decisions affecting the public. Another interesting aspect of RTI Act is that there is “Penalty for forfeiture of information”.
Section 4(2) of the Act says that “it shall be the constant endeavor of every public authority to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including internet, so that the public shall have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information”. So the dream is the change of mindset from maintenance of Official Information in Secret to Maximum Voluntary disclosure of information.
Having told the philosophy of Right to Information, it is imperative that the ways and means of availing the information shall be set. So the RTI Act directs that ‘
Every Public Authority shall designate as many Public Information Officers (PIO) in all the administrative units or Offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting information”. PIO is also required to help any person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. The Act further stipulates that “every public authority shall designate an Officer at each sub-divisional or other sub-district level as Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) to receive the applications for information or appeals under this RTI Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the respective PIO or 1st Appellate Authority or Information Commission. The Burden of proving that PIO/APIO has acted reasonably and diligently in discharge of his functions or obligations under RTI Act will be on the respective PIO/APIO.
PIO may seek assistance of any other Officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties. Section 5(5) of RTI Act says that such Officer will be deemed as PIO for the purposes of providing the information requested. All the Burden including liability for Penalty on defiance of information will stand transferred to the Deemed PIO, if PIO transfers the request to such Officer with a note indicating the same
The Request for information has to be submitted to PIO or APIO in writing or through electronic means in English, Hindi or Official language of the area with a nominal Fee of Rs. 10/-. (There is no fee for persons Below Poverty Line). PIO can demand additional sum of Rs. 2 for each page created or copied for giving it as information to the requestor or Rs. 50/- per diskette/floppy if the same is given in electronic form. Incase if Inspection of work is requested no fee is chargeable for the first hour, but Rs. 5/- each for every subsequent hours.
The Act mandates that the PIO shall provide the requested information as expeditiously as possible, but in no way later than 30 days. However the public authorities can take 5 days more to part with the information sought, if such request is made through APIO. But in any case where the requested information involves the question of “life or liberty”, such information should be given within 48 hours.
Section 6(2) of RTI Act makes it clear that a person requesting information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details. However this freedom implies that the citizens shall show a greater sense of responsibility on the part of the use of information in the media and elsewhere. (Dissemination shall be in Public Interest.). In view of the national security, Intelligence and Security Organisations such as IB, RAW of Cabinet Secretariat, BSF, SPG, CISF, DRDO, Special Branch CID of Andaman & Nicobar, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Narcotics Control Bureau etc. have been exempted from stringent provisions of the RTI Act. But it is very interesting to note that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations are not exempt from disclosure even in the case of those organizations. That conveys the very intention of this Legislation.
Now comes the real question – What is the remedy if the requested information is denied? RTI Act establishes an Independent and Non-judicial appellate mechanism in which a body called “Information Commission” (Central Information Commission and State information Commissions) has been set as the apex body. Further Section 23 of the Act asserts that ‘No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act’. But this provision cannot be interpreted as a complete bar on jurisdiction of courts, since the options of Writ petitions and Special Leave petitions always subsists. Information Commission also would entertain the complaints from any one who is aggrieved on account of any matter relating to obtaining information under this law including the cases where the public authority refused to accept the RTI Request.
In order to give an opportunity for the ‘public authority’ to review its on decision as to the denial of Information requested from PIO, the Act requisitions that an Officer senior in rank to PIO be appointed as the First Appellate Authority, to whom the aggrieved citizen can appeal within thirty days of expiry of time limits within which he/she should have received the information requested. The First Appellate Authority (AA) shall ordinarily dispose of the appeal within thirty days or latest by the forty-fifth day with reasons for availing such prolonged period. An appeal to the respective Central or State Information Commission may be made within a period of 90 days from the date of decision of the Appellate Authority or from the date of expiry of time limit for the disposal of the first appeal made before the first Appellate Authority.
Information Commission may, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, impose upon PIO, a fine of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, if he/she has without any reasonable ground: refused to accept an application for information; or delayed furnishing of information; or malafidely denied information; or knowingly given incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information; or destroyed information that has been requested; or obstructed furnishing of information in any manner. So the Act has teeth; it can not only bark but bite also. But of course the PIO will be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him
. The RTI Act extends its arm further to declare that if PIO persistently violates his obligations under RTI Act, Information Commission shall recommend for disciplinary action against such PIO under the service rules applicable to him.
Though the Right to Information Act moots complete transparency in the governmental system, it is also equally important that the strategic information pertaining to the State and any personal information devoid of larger public interest be exempted from disclosure. Accordingly Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act bars the disclosure of the following information.
a) Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
b) Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
c) Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
d) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, (unless larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information);
e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, (unless the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information);
f) Information received in confidence from foreign Government;
g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. (However, after the decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, the decision, the reasons thereof and the material leading to the decision shall be made public);
j) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless larger public interest demands its disclosure
Further, Section 9 of the Act insists that any information that i
nfringes the copyright of any person other than the State should not be disclosed. While Section 8 and Section 9 prevents the disclosure of the kind of information mentioned above, the Act maintains vide
Section 10(1) that ‘access may be provided to that part of the record, which is not exempted from disclosure, and which can reasonably be severed from any part of that contains the ‘exempt information’
You would also be delighted to learn about an important decision of the Full Bench of Central Information Commission (Decision dated 23rd April 2007), which declared that there is “No fiduciary relationship” in respect of “Evaluated Answer Sheets”, while maintaining accepting that there existed “Fiduciary Relationship” between a) Lawyer and Client; b) Doctor and Patient; c) Bank and Customer; d) Trustee and Beneficiary; e) Organisation and Reporting Officer in respect of CR of an Employee etc. Therefore the Information Commission directed that the answer sheets should ordinarily be disclosed in all circumstances, but subject to the scrutiny under S. 8 (1) and Section 9 of RTI Act. The Commission stated further that the evaluated answer sheets could be disclosed withholding the name of the Examiner, in view of the fact that the disclosure of identity of the examiners might pose a danger to the life and safety of the Examiner. The decision also implies that marks given by each of the Interview board members are givable without revealing their identity.
So RTI Act, 2005 is the most pretty and powerful legislation that the democratic India gifted to its citizens. Its Supremacy is being reiterated in Section 22 of the Act, which states that ‘
The Provisions of RTI Act will be having the overriding effect on any contradicting provisions in Official Secret Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act”
Let me add a few sagas of successful RTI ventures as an anecdote here. The first story is from a north Indian village. Mazloom Nadaf, a 70-year old rickshaw puller had no scope for his long-awaited dream until he found light in RTI. The story reads as follows – Nadaf did not get any response for the first five years on his application on Indira Awas Yojana – India’s National housing Scheme. Five years later, authorities demanded Rs. 5000/- from him to process the application. But he refused to give the money and, instead approached the legal aid centre of an NGO working in Madhubani district and sought their assistance in drafting and filing an RTI application. In his RTI request, Mazloom asked for the daily progress report made on his application to avail of the Indira Awas Yojana. The application was filed with the Circle Officer for his block who forwarded the same to the Block Development Officer (BDO). The BDO on receiving the RTI application called Mazloom and treated him like a VIP and with a lot of respect handed over a Cheque of Rs. 15,000 (first installment payment) under the Indira Awas Yojana. He was also promised that he would get the subsequent installments in time.
Right to Information Act was also effectively used by residents of a village in Rajasthan’s Bikaner district to put an end to the practice of selling grains from ration shops in the black market. Mr. Revat Ram, Secretary, Jagruk Yuvak Manch of the areas was Instrumental in this achievement. Revat Ram and his friends used the RTI Act to get all records of their ration shop in Himmatsar village and exposed how grains meant for the poor were being black-marketed at a ration shop in Bikaner. After the move, the villagers got the dealer removed. Besides losing dealership, the ration shopkeeper was also forced to pay poor families in the village over Rupees Four Lakhs, the cash equivalent of the grains he had sold illegally.
“They threatened us and also offered money. But we refused, because we wanted to ensure that people in our village get the grains they deserve from the government. And we did not get scared in fighting for the rights of our people” – Says Mr. Revat
.
The message of RTI Act is very clear – Uproot corruption and make the governmental system totally transparent and accountable to the people. So Government Employee is no longer a Government Servant. He/She has to transform to a Public Servant in Letter and Spirit.
To End with, I wish to quote the father of our nation
-”The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused
“.
Is it that the Independent India needed 58 years to realize what Mahatmaji told?
R S PRAVEEN RAJ
Scientist – IP Management & Technology Transfer
National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science & Technology (NIIST),
(Formerly RRL, Trivandrum), Industrial Estate P.O., Pappanamcode,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 019.
http://secularcitizen.net/profile-of-blog-owner/