REVISITING BIHAR COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMISSION REPORT

REVISITING BIHAR COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMISSION REPORT Khagendra Kumar Professor Faculty of Education Patna University, Patna Only those Indian parents send their children to government schools who cannot afford private schooling for their wards. A substantial proportion of children in the country also study at low cost unrecognized private schools. Parents of these children belong to the low-income group and quite different from those who send their children to costly private schools. Although teachers and management of these schools are more accountable to parents, the quality of these schools is also far from satisfactory. A very small proportion of upper and middle-class parents send their children in recognized private schools providing education of relatively good quality at a very high cost. Some government schools like Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, and Sainik Schools also impart education of comparable quality but a minuscule proportion of a specialized group of children study in these schools. All this indicates that quality universal school education is still to be a national priority in India. The Education Commission of India (1964-66) in its report recommended the establishment of a Common School System for all children irrespective of their class, caste, religious or linguistic background. The Ramamurti Committee considered the development of the Common School System (CSS) to be a "very vital component of the overall strategy for securing equity and social justice in education." CSS envisions a system of education that will impart quality education to all children without any sort of discrimination. Institution of the Common School System Commission (CSSC) by the Government of Bihar is the first initiative of its kind in India for establishing the CSS in the state. The institution of the Common School System Commission (CSSC) by the Government of Bihar is the first initiative of its kind in India for establishing the CSS in the state. Although the CSSC report has dwelt upon all related issues of CSS in the context of Bihar and provided practical recommendations including financial implications for the establishment of CSS in Bihar within a stipulated timeframe. The CSSC report is yet to be implemented. The author tried to examine the CSSC report and found out some contradictions between its theoretical discussions and practical recommendations. In light of the above identified contradictions and suggestions, the CSSC report should be revised before implementation so as to make it more meaningful, practical and effective. Keywords Common School System (CSS), and the Common School System Commission (CSSC) Introduction It is a hard fact that in India only poor children go to government schools. All those who can afford to send their children to private schools. The present disparity prevalent in education system widens the social segregation instead of bridging it. The most government-owned schools are still devoid of appropriate teaching-learning conditions. What is of particular concern is that private schools are increasing both numerically and in the overall share of the job market. Data shows private education as an entirely insignificant part of the school education in India. Even in a poor state like Bihar a substantial proportion of school-going children attend private schools. " …The District Information System for Education (DISE) data for 2008-2009 estimates a total of 93 private schools for the whole of Bihar. Provisional data for 2009-10 suggest 14 private schools in the entire state. Our study found that these figures grossly underestimate the true picture. In Patna Urban alone, our study team visited 1,224 private unaided schools – and even this is a lower bound on the true number, as of course, we cannot be sure that we visited all of the schools. Despite the insignificant official number of such schools, private unaided schools make up the vast majority of schools in Patna – 78%, compared to only 21% of government schools and 1% of private aided". (Rangraju et.al. 2012, p.1) No authentic data is available about the number of unrecognized schools existing in India. The above study ‘The Private School Revolution in Bihar: Findings from a Survey in Patna Urban' provided an answer for the city of Patna. What has been found in Patna is unlikely to be different from many parts of India. From this study, it can be inferred that a substantial proportion of children in the country study in low cost unrecognized private schools. Parents of these children belong to the low-income group and quite different from those who send their children to costly private schools. It would be immoral to close down low cost private unrecognized schools as mandated by the new law after implementation of Right to Education (RTE) act 2009 on 1 April 2010. The Right to Education Act is landmark legislation but its great weakness is that it has neglected the outcomes of our school system. More than half our children in class 5 cannot read nor do simple arithmetic that is expected of them in class 2, as the ASER reports show year after year. India must be unique in the world for wanting to close down schools that serve the poor. The Indian education system has failed to realize the fact that these schools provide a better education than most of the government schools in India and even poor people with little earnings prefer to send their children to these schools. They have been declared illegal. These schools typically charge lower fees but they do not get recognition because they fail to meet all the standards. To comply with standards, these schools would have to raise fees three to four times, and then the poor would not be able to afford them. Unrecognized private schools, which mostly cater to the poor in the slums and villages of India, have been under threat for some time. With the passage of the Right to Education Act, the threat is now real. The governments of many states make it difficult for private schools to function (Das, Gurcharan, Foreword in Rangaraju et.al.). A very small proportion of upper and middle-class parents send their children in recognized private schools providing education of relatively good quality at a higher cost. A substantial proportion of parents having quite low earnings as compared to middle classes send their children to low cost unrecognized private schools. These schools may not be providing quality education at par with costly recognized schools but school management and teachers are responsive and accountable to parents who can move their child to a competing school if they are not satisfied. The vast majority of parents send their children to government schools where children get mid-day meals and free school dresses and books along with some other facilities which vary from state to state but quality education. The vast majority of common children in India get poor quality free education in government schools. All this indicates that quality of universal school education is still to be a national priority. Government is not showing its accountability towards imparting quality education to all the eligible children. Commercialization and privatization of education flourishes because of government apathy Way back in 1964, the Kothari Commission on Education also criticized this separate, unequal school system. "…education itself is tending to increase social segregation and to perpetuate and widen class distinctions. At the primary stage, the free schools to which masses send their children are maintained by the government and local authorities and are generally of poor quality. Some of the private schools are, on the whole, definitely better, but since many of them charge high fees they are availed of only by the middle and higher classes. At the secondary stage, a large proportion of the good schools are private but many of them also charge high fees which are normally beyond the means of any but the top ten percent of people, though some of the middle-class parents make great sacrifices to send their children to them. There is this segregation in education itself — the minority of private fee-charging, better schools meeting the need of the upper classes and the vast bulk of free, publicly maintained, but poor schools being utilized by the rest. What is worse, this segregation is increasing and tending to widen the gulf between the classes and the masses," commented the report of the commission. (Report of the Education Commission, Para 10.18-10.20) The Education Commission of India (1964-66) in its report recommended the establishment of a Common School System for all children irrespective of their class, caste, religious or linguistic background. The commission stated that to fulfill this purpose, neighborhood schools should be re-established in all localities. It also recognized that this was the only way we can promote social harmony and equality of education. The school system in India has been inherited from the colonial ruler; it was developed on the principle of homogeneity in the late 19th century to respond to the needs of an industrial and hierarchical society in the west. The indigenous requirement of the Indian society demands school set up to be followed that should be egalitarian taking social and economic and cultural disparities into consideration. Advocacy for Common School System The Education Commission (1964-66) advanced two reasons for a ‘‘good’’ education by eliminating social segregation in schools. First, it said, “a neighborhood school will provide good education to children because sharing life with common people is an essential ingredient of a good education". Secondly, "the establishment of such schools will compel rich, privileged and powerful classes to take an interest in the system of public education and thereby bring about its early improvement". The ‘‘rich, privileged and powerful classes'' never took interest in government schools, despite accepting the commission's recommendations on the Common School System (CSS) in 1968, and later in the 1986 national education policies. The Kothari Commission's recommendation of a Common School System (CSS) across the country was endorsed by the National Education Policies of 1986 and 1992. However, the recommendation was never translated into action. In 1990, the apex Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE), which appraises the extent to which the National Education Policy is implemented by the Central and state governments and other agencies, constituted Acharya Ramamurti Committee (1990) which outlined the following reasons for the common school system proposal not having made headway. The Committee says that the variations among masses and classes highly deep-rooted. The social segregation is much prevalent in our society, leading them to hate each other or even sometimes fighting on pretty issues. In such a situation the CSS cannot be imposed. The elite class sends their children where they can get quality education by well educated professional teachers. However, it did not mention caste or religion-based discrimination, which is the main hindrance to CSS. The second problem he highlighted is constitutional. According to the constitution, minorities have been given the right to establish and administer their educational institutions, which is against the spirit of the CSS. Further, he blamed the government itself for establishing a few separate schools such as Sainik schools, Navodaya Vidyalayas, or Central School, which are against the democratic spirit. Few separate schools or institution for a separate class is not democratic. It is a governmental duty to provide elementary education to all students for 14years. The fourth reason, the committee attributed to private managed English medium schools, charging high fees and having expensive coaching and better infrastructure. Private sector schools in India are nothing but an affluent business. It is true to say that these private schools are teaching shops running in two to ten rooms. During the last decade, thousands of business, engineering, and medical colleges along with a lot of professional institutions came into existence. The presence of private schools indicates that the government has failed to provide education to all. Today, integrating private schools into CCS has become a far-flung dream. Interestingly the government has itself created a divide among children by introducing a new layer of schooling for select sections euphemistically described as ‘pace-setting' schools - Navodaya Vidyalayas, Kendriya Vidyalayas, Sainik Schools and other such schools. The Ramamurti Committee considered the development of the Common School System (CSS) to be a "very vital component of the overall strategy for securing equity and social justice in education." CSS envisions a system of education that will impart education, not merely literacy. An education that allows a child to interact confidently with people, by providing an environment that fosters the development of critical analysis and not submission to the existing segregation in society. (Report of the Committee for review of NPE 1986, section D, pp.84-85) The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) Committee on New Education Policy (1992) while examining the Ramamurti committee report asked the ‘‘privileged schools'' to accept ‘‘social responsibility by sharing their facilities and resources with other institutions and facilitating access to children of the disadvantaged groups.'' Some private schools in the metropolis are running ‘‘centres'' for the ‘‘underprivileged'' in the afternoon or their outhouses — thus doing ‘‘excellence'' in the forenoon and equity in the afternoon, devoid of the principle of addressing excellence and equity simultaneously. The most important feature of a CSS is an equitable (not uniform) quality of education for all types of schools, be the Government, government-aided, local body or private schools. Six essential and non-negotiable attributes of equitable quality of education need to be specified: (i) minimum physical infrastructure, including library, teaching aids, playgrounds and many other features (e.g. early childhood care centres and pre-primary schools attached to primary/elementary schools); (ii)professional quality of teachers and teacher-student ratio; (iii) diversified and flexible curriculum to reflect the geo-cultural plurality of the country, while emphasizing certain core curricular features of nation-wide significance; (iv) pedagogy for holistic, child-friendly and liberating education; (v) apart from gender sensitivity, pedagogic and social empathy for the Dalits, tribals, cultural and ethnic minorities and the physically or mentally challenged children; and (vi) de-centralized and community-controlled school system. It is quite evident from the above discussion that origin of the Common School System (CSS) in India can be traced back in the Education Commission (1964-66) report. The Education Commission perceived CSS as a tool for social transformation. It was argued that it will weaken the disparity and inequality in education by bringing the different social classes and groups together. The CSS will thus promote the emergence of an egalitarian and integrated society. It is with this intention that the Kothari Commission first recommended the implementation of a common CSS System of education in 1966. The spirit of the CSS goes well beyond the mere provision of a school building, textbooks, stationery, and a teacher. It is based on the belief that every child is entitled to receive a good quality education from the state. CSS envisions an education system where local communities and not global market forces, communal forces or private entrepreneurs determine the quality of education provided in government schools. It becomes imperative for us to say here that CSS is inconceivable without the special measures of advocacy, social mobilization, and empowerment of local bodies like Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and urban bodies. The CSS will fit well in our secular set up, where many languages are spoken and religions exist. Democracy requires a common school system. The CSS not only democratizes the education system but is also a significant tool to social transformation. The CSS will provide an opportunity to all students irrespective of their social and economic status to receive a quality education in government schools. The Kothari Commission recommends the CSS to utilize 6 % expenditure of GDP on education. Unfortunately, no government spent more than 3% of GDP on education. In light of impending Right to Education Bill 2005 which later became an act and elementary education became fundamental right of children, “the CABE-2005 raised expenditure on education to 6 percent of GDP by 2006-07 (which we know, has not happened), and half of it had been earmarked for elementary education, alone, this would have implied a possible additional outlay for elementary education to the tune of only about 1 percent of GDP” (Jha et.al. 2008. Pp. 403-04). The Tapas Majumdar Committee, constituted in 1999 to estimate the funds required to ensure that elementary education of eight years is provided to all children, observed that if an additional outlay equivalent to only 0.7 percent of GDP is allocated to education every year, the government will be able to provide education of satisfactory quality to all children in the 6-14 age group within ten years (Sadgopal, 2003) Bihar Initiative for CSS The Government of Bihar showed the intention of establishing a Common School System in the state. It constituted a three-member Common School System Commission (CSSC) on 8th August 2006. The Government resolution notified in the Gazette of Bihar says "A Common School System Commission is hereby constituted to provide quality education to all children and to achieve the goal of equality and social justice in the school education system. The reference point of this system shall be the Common School System founded on the principle of neighborhood schools as recommended by the Education Commission (1966), which has been accepted by the National Policy on Education – 1986 and again by the National Policy on Education – 1986 (As modified in 1992)" ( 8/& 3 – 105/2006). The Commission was asked to submit its report within nine months. The Commission submitted its report on the 8th June 2007. The CSSC report says in its introductory chapter, “In discharging this crucial part of its mandate, the Commission has proceeded on the assumption that its recommendations would be considered and approved by the Government and the legislation proposed by it on Right to Education and Common School System would be enacted by the end of 2007, so that the process of putting the Common School System in place can commence from the beginning of the financial year 2008-09.” The constitution of the Common School System Commission (CSSC) by the Government of Bihar is the first initiative of its kind in India for establishing the CSS in the state. The Commission has made a discussion on almost all the issues related to the CSS in the context of Bihar. It has made recommendations on school teachers; types of schools; administration and management of schools and teacher education; norms and standards of the CSS in Bihar. The Commission as part of its recommendations has drafted three bills namely Bihar Primary and Middle School Education Committee Bill 2007; Bihar Secondary School Education Committee Bill and The Bihar Right to Education and Common School System (Equality, Excellence, and Social Justice) Bill 2007. The third draft bill is the legal framework of the CSS in Bihar. The Commission has also discussed curriculum and pedagogy to be adopted by the CSS. It has also discussed the status of existing Buniyadi Vidyalayas in Bihar and tried to explore its relevance for the CSS. Finally, the Commission has estimated the financial implications of establishing the CSS in 8 years starting from the financial year 2008-09. The Commission has proceeded on the assumption that its recommendations would be considered and approved by the Government of Bihar and legislations proposed by it would be enacted by the end of 2007. The Commission has made it clear that its "recommendations can't be, and must not be, implemented piecemeal or as experimental projects in selected backward areas, as the governments are often tempted to do so. Such a fragmented understanding of the recommendations shall be a grave injustice to the seriousness and sincerity with which we have approached the task assigned to us." (Report of the CSSC, p. iv) Revisiting Common School System Commission (CSSC) Report of Bihar Scanning of the CSSC report revealed some contradictions between discussions made by the CSSC on various issues related to the CSS and the Commission’s recommendations related to them at various places of the report. CSSC in its report has forcefully argued that all kinds of schools existing in Bihar should be converted into the uniform school but it could not argue the same uniformity for the existing private schools. The CSSC argues in chapter 5 of its report that the private schools should be brought into the CSS without changing their basic character and preventing them from experimenting with new methods of teaching, student-teacher interaction and socialization amongst students. The Commission has not explained the basic character of the private schools that will remain unchanged. The Commission says that all private schools in Bihar will be required to comply with the norms and standards of the CSS. The two basic differences between the government schools and the private schools of Bihar lie in their infrastructural facilities and medium of instruction. The medium of instruction in most of the private schools is English even at pre-primary and primary levels and it is the basic reason for their demand among well to do a section of the society. If these schools will be made to follow CSS norms than they will have to impart education in the mother tongue of the children up to class II and Hindi/Urdu/ a regional language up to class VIII. As per the CSS norms regarding the medium of education and teaching of languages, "Up to Class VIII, recognized private schools will be required to follow the same rules as applicable to government and aided schools so far as medium of education and teaching of English is concerned." The basic character of a school depends on its medium of instruction, curriculum, and evaluation. Once the private schools come under the CSS, basic characters of most of these schools are bound to change. The CSSC says that consistent with the provision of Article 21A of the Constitution, every private school will be obliged by the State to provide education, which is compulsory and free of any fee or charge, to all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. The Commission further says that the Government will reimburse to the private schools, if they so desire, the costs of imparting compulsory and free education up to class VIII. Beyond Class VIII, the private schools can charge fees but they will be required to comply with the minimum norms and become a part of the CSS. The private schools are generally established under societies or trusts having a promotion of education as one of the objectives and get many concessions and facilities from the government. In spite of this, these schools are run as business establishments and profit-making is an important consideration. According to the CSSC, the Government of Bihar will meet the full requirement of the children in the age group 5-14 for providing a sufficient number of schools with prescribed facilities within five years. Any attempt by the government to seek to meet this requirement by encouraging the opening of new private schools may by default result in the non-fulfillment of the State's obligation under Article 21A. Hence, no new private schools will be allowed to open for providing education at the pre-elementary & elementary stage. It would not be possible for the state government to put a blanket ban on the opening of private institutions as the constitution permits various groups of people to open their educational institutions for the education of their children to protect their religion, language and culture. Religious and cultural safeguards have been guaranteed by the Constitution to minority communities to ensure them ‘justice, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship' (Basu, 2001, p. 120). The state government can regulate the fees structure of the private schools instead of making reimbursement of the costs of imparting compulsory and free elementary education. If the government withdraws concessions given to these schools, many of them will not survive. If these schools are made to follow the CSS norms regarding medium of education and teaching of languages and admitting children from Poshak /Kshetra only and the government schools are provided with physical facilities and teachers as per CSS norms then there will be reasonable parity between the private and government schools and attitude of parents towards both government and private schools will change. The state government should make such rules that public representatives and all state government employees compulsorily send their children to the government schools. (Kumar, 2008) The CSSC advocates decentralized school management as it improves opportunities and outcomes for students, satisfies parental and societal expectations, harnesses community resources and stimulates innovation and experimentation. The Commission opines that after the 73rd and 74th amendment to the Indian Constitution, it has become obligatory to assign a proper role to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in the running of schools. But the role of PRIs has been reduced to minimal in the legal frame of the CSS. Chapter 14 of the CSSC Report deals with ‘Legal Framework for Common School System’. It includes ‘the Bihar Right to Education and Common School System (Equality, Excellence and Social Justice), Bill, 2007’. Section 15 of this chapter describes the duties of local bodies which are limited to maintain a complete database relating to the education of children in their jurisdiction indicating, among other particulars, their name, age, and school admitted in. The 73rd amendment of Indian Constitution provides statutory status to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies and identifies 29 subjects including primary and elementary education to be placed under them to achieve developmental goals. The Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 1993/2006 has identified the duties of Panchayats in Education to fulfill constitutional obligations. The CSSC has recommended two drafts Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti (VSS) Bills, one for primary and middle schools and other for secondary schools, for management of schools for consideration by the Bihar Legislature. The linkage between Samities and PRIs/Local Urban bodies is not well defined in the recommended VSS bills in spite of the CSSC's suggested consideration regarding well-defined linkages between the management committee and PRI for restructuring management committees of primary, middle and secondary schools. Like the Kothari Commission, the concept of neighborhood schools is central to the Common School System. The Kothari Commission Report recommended that each school within the Common School System should be attended by all the children in the neighborhood. The CSSC says that neighborhood has to be specified and delineated by prescribed authority. It is important to note that the CSSC has quoted the following lines from the Kothari Commission Report (para10.18) while making a discussion on the rationale of the CSS in chapter 3 of its report: . “in the first place, a neighborhood school will provide good education to children because sharing life with common people is . . . an essential ingredient of a good education. Secondly, the establishment of such schools will compel rich, privileged and powerful classes to take interest in the system of public education and thereby bring about its early improvement” It is a hard fact that elites of society will find some ways for not sending their children in neighborhood government schools. They can easily manage a residence or at least a residential address in the neighborhood of a good private school. This is already happening in case of those few private schools which admit students only from the neighboring areas. It is neither possible to close down private schools nor possible to toeing the private schools to the lines of the CSS fully. There has to be a lot of differences between private and public education system. The government schools can be provided with basic facilities for the education of comparable quality but they cannot match the facilities of expensive private schools. Privileged and powerful people of the society are bound to be inclined towards these expensive private schools as they provide their children best quality education and help them to maintain higher status in comparison to the common people who send their children to government schools. One of the norms for the CSS suggested by us in the document entitled ‘Considered View on Common School System’ submitted to the CSSC in response to the public notification by the Bihar Government was ‘Compulsory provision for schooling of public representatives and public servants in government schools.' But this suggestion did not find a place in its recommendation. Those who are mainly responsible to run the public system cannot be allowed to find an alternative system for themselves. If they fail to run a public system properly they must face problems like common people and if they run the system well they must enjoy the fruit. If public representatives and high ranking government servants send their children to the neighborhood government schools, it will have its far-reaching implications in building the CSS. Until full proof measure is taken for sending the children of public representatives and public servants in the neighborhood government schools, it is almost impossible to build a Common School System of comparable quality. The Common School System Commission (CSSC) has prepared for possible adoption by the Bihar legislature, the text of legislation on Right to Education and Common School System in Bihar. According to the CSSC ‘This legal underpinning of the Common School System covers the entire school system and, if adopted, should replace all existing legislation on school education' (enclosed letter to the Chief Minister in the report). But it did not suggest any measure to ensure that children of the public representatives and public servants will compulsorily study in the neighborhood government schools along with common children. The CSSC says "Today the nation has reached a pass where the government and government-aided schools are enrolling mainly the children of the underprivileged classes – SCs, STs and minority groups who cannot afford the fee charged by the private schools. The neglect has been possibly the most rampant in the State of Bihar. Hardly any school was built between 1991 and 2005 and only a handful of teachers were recruited during this period. The training was officially declared to be non-essential for recruitment to the teacher's profession. If in spite of this, the escape from public schools has not been on as large a scale and private schools have not grown as rapidly as in the other States of India, it is because of the very heavy incidence of poverty in the State." (Report of the CSSC sec 3.3, p.33) The Commission appeared to be either biased in its opinion towards the government that had instituted it or it could not perceive facts which could be seen at many places in the report. It is a reality across the country that nobody except poor who could not afford private schooling of their children sends them to government schools. Bihar is not any exception. Education of the socially deprived sections of Bihar who form the vast majority of this society and are also underprivileged was neglected since independence. While making a further discussion on education of Bihar it must be noted that the education among upper caste population of Bihar is nearly universal. The problem of literacy and universalization of elementary education is the problem of lower caste people of Bihar. The sense of social responsibility towards the vast masses of socially and economically disadvantaged has been nearly absent among the upper caste people. There is hardly any change in the general attitude of the upper caste people towards the lower caste people. The only change is that overt caste-ridden practices have found ways in covert and subtle practices. The period mentioned by the CSSC i.e.1991-2005 for all ills of education is the period which made the lower caste people live with some dignity, in otherwise not so livable society. It is believed that the success of literacy and science movements of Kerala's people lies in its preceding movements like Peasants' Movement, Sri Narayan Guru Movement, Library Movement, Teachers Movement, etc. There is no history of such social movements in Bihar. But the above mentioned period is the significant period in the history of Bihar in terms of the emergence of a socially deprived section as a major force of socio-political change. Their social and political awareness rose to the level that they became reasonably empowered and asserted for their right to reservation in jobs and admission in colleges and universities which were generally manipulated earlier. This period cannot be discredited in the manner the CSSC has done. This period is the watershed in the history of social and political awareness of socially deprived populace of Bihar. Nearly 50 thousand shiksha mitras were appointed before 2005 who were converted into panchayat shikshak in 2007. Nearly 40 thousand regular teachers were recruited by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) during the years 1994 and 1999. These teachers were provided training after recruitment, although the quality of their training was poor. The Common School System Commission's statement, "In 1994 the Government of Bihar abolished pre-service training as a requirement for becoming a teacher" (Report of the CSSC, Para 1.10, p.18) is quite misleading. The then government adopted a new strategy to check the growth of substandard private training institutions which used to collect a huge amount of money from students and send them up for examinations without even few days of teaching. A large number of students used to come to Bihar from other states to get admission to these institutions. It was decided by the government that at first quality teachers will be recruited then pre-service (initial) training will be given to them. This wonderful scheme was taken to criticism mainly for three reasons. Firstly, a large number of trained candidates could not pass the recruitment examination conducted by the BPSC. Secondly, the recruitment against vacant seats was not a regular process. 40 thousand primary teachers were recruited in two phases during 1991-2005. No appointment of High School (secondary school) teachers was done in spite of a large number of vacancies. Thirdly, no proper mechanism for quality training of recruited untrained teachers was developed. The CSSC describing present status of school education in Bihar says “In the beginning of 2006, the State government took the unprecedented decision to appoint 2.6 lakhs elementary and secondary school teachers to clear the entire backlog of vacancies, bring teacher: pupil ratio to 1:40 and to bring all out-of-school children into the elementary schools (Report of the CSSC 2007, Chapter 4, Para 4.4 (a) p.61). Defending appointment of a large number of contract teachers on very low salary the CSSC argued that with regard to the salaries of the newly appointed teachers, keeping in view the State’s limited resources and the meager Central Government support, the State had two choices: first, to maintain the old level of salary and appoint lesser number of teachers depriving a large number of children of their right to education according to Article 21A of the Constitution, or forcing them into crowded classrooms; and the second to reduce the salary to a reasonable level and appoint a larger number of teachers. The State exercised the second choice. “For recruiting such a vast number of teachers within a short space of two years, the government had to recruit teachers who do not have all the required qualifications, particularly related to teachers training." (Report of the CSSC 2007, p.61) The Commission’s view is quite contradictory in justifying many stands of the present government although they are in contradiction to their recommendations. Before analyzing the above argument put forward by the CSSC it would be worth looking into the norms and criteria for teachers’ pay and allowances described by the CSSC in chapter 6 of its report. The CSSC categorically says that the pay and allowance of teachers should be at levels in keeping with their educational qualifications and professional responsibility. They should be adequate to attract talents and retain them in the profession. In a country where the social status of an individual is still measured in terms of his pay scale, the pay and allowances to be paid to teachers should be compared favorably with those earned by other professionals having commensurate educational qualifications and training. There is no denying that the professional responsibility of a teacher is very high, perhaps highest. Describing the essential criteria for fixation of salary and allowances of school teachers the Commission says that pay and allowances of school teachers should be fixed at a level high enough to enable them to live a life of dignity (Report of the CSSC, Chapter 6, and p.86) But the Commission justified the state government’s stand of appointing a large number of school teachers on a very low salary, even lower than a fourth-grade employee by the Government of Bihar. Teachers were appointed in primary, middle, secondary and senior secondary schools on a consolidated meager monthly salary of rupees 4000 to7000. Ironically, this salary structure has been adjudged as a reasonable salary by the Commission. Although the report of CSSC is yet to be implemented but emboldened by its justification the Bihar Government abolished the regular cadre of a school teacher in the state. If a regular teacher getting full salary as per his/her pay scale retires, his/her post will automatically get abolished. Over 3 lakh teachers were recruited in phases on meager consolidated salary. The process is still on. The CSSC must not defend such practices which improved statistics like school-teacher and pupil-teacher ratios but robbed schools of quality teachers. Government policies, removal of regular teaching cadre and appointing contract teachers on a very low salary, have spoiled school system of Bihar. Conclusion CSS appears to be the only remedy for ensuring quality school education to all children in India without any kind of discrimination. The institution of CSSC by the Bihar government showed its resolve for equitable quality education to all the children of the state. The constitution of the Common School System Commission (CSSC) by the Government of Bihar is the first initiative of its kind in India for establishing the CSS in the state. Although the CSSC report has dwelt upon all related issues of CSS in the context of Bihar and provided practical recommendations including financial implications for the establishment of CSS in Bihar within a stipulated timeframe. But we tried to examine the CSSC report which helped in identifying some basic contradictions while making a discussion on certain issues related to the school system of Bihar and between theoretical discussions on certain issues and practical recommendations on them. For example, it has been identified that the CSSC’s arguments for converting different kinds of schools of Bihar into the uniform school but the CSSC has a different kind of argument for private schools. It has been argued that they should be brought into CSS without changing their basic character. The basic character has been left unidentified. We have tried to identify these basic characters and found that these characters are the reasons behind creating a schism between government and private schools. Without addressing these basic characters of private schools, the establishment of CSS is not possible. The CSSC's views about reimbursement of costs to private schools for imparting free and compulsory education to the common children also appear to be reconsidered as these institutions run under registered societies or trusts and get concessions from the state for running welfare activities like opening schools and imparting education to children. There appear contradictions between theoretical discussion on decentralization and role of local self-governments in CSS and the role of local self-governments in proposed Legal Framework for CSS and two Vidalia Shiksha Samiti (VSS) bills. In light of the above-identified contradictions and suggestions, the CSSC report should be revised to make it more meaningful, practical and effective. References Basu, D.D. (2001). Introduction to the Constitution of India. New Delhi: Wadhwa. Chandrasekaran, A. (2000). ‘Human Rights Awareness in Education’ in Normal, Chiranjivi J. Human Rights in India – Historical, Social and Political Perspectives. New Delhi: Oxford. Common School System Commission. (2007). Report of the Common School System Commission (CSSC). Patna: Government of Bihar. Kumar, Khagendra. (2008). Common School System: Examining First Initiative in India. New Delhi: Prakashan Sansthan. Report of the Education omission,1964-66: Education and National Development. (1971). New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. Jha, Praveen et. al. (2008). Public Provisioning for Elementary Education in India. New Delhi: Sage. Rangraju, Baldevan, James Tooley and Pauline Dixon. (2012). Private School Revolution in Bihar: Finding a Survey in Patna Urban. New Delhi: India Institute /EG West Centre Newcastle University. Report of the Committee of National Policy on Education 1986 (final report). (1990). http://www.teindia.nic.in/files/reports/ccr/ramamurti-committee-report.pdf, 26 December. Sadgopal, Anil. (2003). ‘Education for Too Few’ in Frontline, Vol. 20-Issue 24, Nov. 22- Dec. 05. http://www.educationforallinindia.com/anilsadgopalnew.htm Sinha, D. N. (1967). Educational Planning: Discrimination and Equal Protection of the Laws in Sharma G. S. (ed.) Educational Planning: Its Legal and Constitutional Implications in India. Bombay: The Indian Law Institute. p. 96