` 04-03-2017

Bangalore

From,
MOHAN S.REDDY & RAJITHA S.MOHAN
Parents of NITHIN M.REDDY
IV D Section
Oxford Senior Secondary School
JP Nagar,
Bangalore 560 078

To,
1) Sri.Ramesh Raju
Chairman/Head of
Oxford Senior Secondary School
JP Nagar,
Bangalore 560 078

2) The Principal
Mrs. MARIAMMA S.MATHEW
Oxford Senior Secondary School
JP Nagar,
Bangalore 560 078

3) HOD
Smt Sunitha
Oxford Senior Secondary School
JP Nagar,
Bangalore 560 078

Sir/Madam,

We are issuing this notice to all the three of you herein with regard to my
Son NITHIN M.Reddy who is detained in Section in violation of
RTE Act, 2009 as herein below:-
 I. I and my wife are facing lot of problems from your institution ever
since the admission of my son to your school. During my son
studying KG-01 one HOD by name ROHINI started to harass my son
from his beginning days of the school, reason for the same was the
bag was snatched by her, stating that it was a big one which does not
fit the bench compartment when I and my wife questioned when the
school has not given any measurement for the bag how can we
anticipate whats the measurement required and also when we
questioned if they were particular of the measurement, the institution
itself should have supplied, we were ready to pay the amount for it.
She was unable to digest our reasonable questioning. She started to
differenciate my son ill-treat him and also on her directions no
teachers took Proper care of him. When we questioned this, she was
annoyed and defended her acts. She has slapped twice our son and
his inner cheeks were swollen and bruise on his cheeks, still we kept
quiet for the purpose of our son future. From the foundation the
institution did not mould him well but at the same breath we are
happy with Deborah Madam leadership, the teachers handling the
classes and the care they take , the style of molding the students are
excellent as our daughter is in the same institution now at standard-
01. We joined our daughter to your institution only after ascertaining
the said Rohini is no more working.

II. We totally blame the institution for recruiting unskilled teachers

without proper training as they lack the capability to train the small
children and mould them. Last year entirely the teachers have not
 taken care of my son, they have not signed the dairy and his books
were misplaced. when we communicated the same in the column
provided in the school dairy, the class teacher has failed to see and
sign still we are preserving the dairy and his in completed books,
teachers have painted the book with remarks as incomplete but failed
to pay extra attention to my son and get his books completed. Even
for that purpose his maths book was in complete while he was
studying in III Standard and the teacher had put question mark with
an comment INCOMPLETE how can we get it completed the
problems are given on her own and we do not have any superstitious
powers to analyze what problems were given in the class, without
proper books work books my son scored less and we brought all
these facts to the second and third of herein with documentary
evidence. Both of them were not in a position to answer or defend
the acts of their subordinates (teachers) so without any alternate
second of herein promoted unconditionally. Till date we have
maintained all the books as documentary evidence to establish the
care taken by the teachers handling my sons class and second and
third of herein.

III. We inform even this year the same attitude is cultivated by the
teachers but comparatively to the previous years, there is a little bit
improvement. On 08-04-2013 the results were announced and our
son result was mentioned as EIOP Which is totally a new word to
us below that it was mentionedEligible for improvement of
performance. The said EIOP is unknown abbreviation/term in
RTE Act, 2009. when we met one of the concerned teacher to collect
the report card, we were said to meet the HOD-Alka mam, when we
met her we were said to meet the Principal, when I and my wife met
we were said our son was detained and further gave us two options
(a) our son has to continue the same class next year or
(b) The child has to take up the exam afresh and in the event if he
passes, admission for next year will be provided. At first
instance we had decided to take TC and when the same was
expressed the second and third herein were overwhelmed with
happiness (through their gestures), but seeing the stubborn and
reluctance of the second and third of you herein, we have
decided to continue my sons education at any risk in the same
institution as a matter of right. We came to know only through
second of you herein that Eligible for improvement of
performance, means a student is failed. The second and third
of you herein shall not detain or withheld any child for that
purpose keeping in mind their extensive steps would create
negative impact and stress on growing children. A photo shot
copy of the result sheet affixed on the notice board is
produced for your reference. We make it clear the second and
third of you herein cant withheld or detain or do anything
incidental to it, to our son or any student up to VIII Standard as

its a gross violation of Section 16 of the

Right to Education Act which all of you better note

it. Declaring and confirming the result of our son under EIOP
(Detained) is an act of Folly.
IV. Section 16 of the RTE Act states that no child

shall be failed in any class or expelled from

school till he or she completes elementary

education (defined as education imparted from

Class 1 to Class 8) . The Act also provides for

special training for students who are deemed to

be deficient and deserving of extra help. The

Government reasons that failing a child is

wrong, no matter the level of learning

deficiency the child exhibits with respect to

his or her peers. Any such deficiencies, the

Government thinks, can be made up through

special training provided by the school

authorities under Section 4 of the Act.

V. The intention of this rule and wisdom of the

legislation is no doubt to support those children
who are not able to attain the level of
performance required to gain admission into the
next class. Through this provision, the
Government wants to reinforce that
performance standards are relative, that failing
a child is an unjust mortification for the childs
persona, and that a child younger than 14 is too
 young to be explicitly classified as deficient
compared to his or her peers.

VI. It appears there is a necessity the teaching staff of the oxford CBSE
School must have offered bridge course for slow learners, but there is
not even a minute focus on that, Many teachers seem to be forgetting
the fact that the larger purpose of the blanket rule i.e., section 16 of
RTE Act is to ensure compulsory education up to the age of 14 years,
and prevent dropout rate in schools. The institution has utterly failed
to take additional care/individual attention, conduct special classes,
or conducting exclusive revision classes to average students, really if
some sort of support was extended, the child could have cent percent
passed on his own efforts. Now-a-days we find in many prestigious
institutions printed answer materials are provided to ensure even if
the childs book is incomplete or lost, the printed study material shall
come to their rescue, but such an imitative is not even attempted by
this institute.

VII. The no detention policy', under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, is
one clause that a majority of the teachers resent (oxford teachers).
But the law states that until class VIII, no child can be held back or
expelled from school. It is common to the teachers handling my son
class complaining that, he has developed a lackadaisical attitude, is it
not the duty of the teachers to take extra care and make him learn, let
the teachers do not forget they are paid for it. If he knew everything,
 and he is perfect and genius as per us, there was no need for him
to study or send him to school. By detaining our son at this
tender age, the school wont lose anything but creates a negative
impact on the child as well as mental agony to us. We make it
clear by investing lakhs of rupees to your institution from his day
one of his admission to your institute till today, the institute is
benefitted but on the other hand we are the losers such is the
level of teaching methodology and showing bias upon my son all
these years. The state and central government has made it clear and
directed all schools, well in advance, to ensure that no student is
detained. A large number of private schools screen academically
weak' students so that, they can concentrate on the good performers
to attain a centum in the Board examination, even your institute is
not an exception to those tactics.

VIII. We were given the English Assessment and we were shocked and
surprised to see one main answers which were rightly answered were
not evaluated and the teacher has taken no pains to cross check the
paper valuated by her, even the second and third of you herein has
not bothered to cross check this clearly goes to show the care taken
by you towards the children. A copy of the answer script,
particular portion not evaluated is herewith enclosed for your
reference and after seeing such gross negligence its needless and
worthless to point out or say anything about the care taken by the
teaching staff. Its pertinent to praise the English teacher; she has put
some effort at one stretch for completing my sons English notes at
 the fag end of the academic year but unfortunate to see the
negligence committed by her during valuation that too in the annual
examination.

IX. We do not say our son is a bright studious person at the same breath
we are not prepared to admit our son is a weak or average student;
the teaching staff is wholly responsible for shattering my sons
education and his incline towards education. We know our son is
good at oral but slow in writing and weak in spellings, we are
maximum putting all our efforts to improve his education but the
teachers has taken zero pains to improve my son with regard to
improve his writing skills, spellings but all that the teaching staff
knows only to comment and take vengeance against my son.

Therefore all the three of you are hereby called

upon to despite from resorting in such illegal acts and direct all the
teaching staff to analyze the reasons for poor performance from all the
classes and find a suitable solution to help the children perform better in
future. This initiative gives greater happiness to see a weak student shining
and there is no fun if intelligent students shine and blossom and teachers
taking credit of the same. And as per law my son is eligible for Vth
standard admission. If your good selves restrain from his admission
without providing admission for Vth standard within seven days from the
receipt of this notice we are constrained to approach the Honble High
court of Karnataka for our relief, in such an event all the three of you are
Jointly and severable responsible for all the costs and risks accrued
thereof.

Note: - copy of the notice is forwarded to following office mentioned

herein below for kind reference to know whats happening in your institute
and suitable action
1) Chair person, National Commission for protection of child rights, 5 th
floor, Chanderlok building, 36, Janpath, New Delhi 110001.
2) Karnataka Commission for protection of child rights, 4 th floor, Krishi
bhavan, Rani chennamma circle, Hudson circle, Nrupatunga road,
Bangalore 560 001.
No student in the State can henceforth be detained till he or she completes Class VIII.
A Government Order dated July 12, 2010, states: No child shall be held back in any class or
expelled from school till the completion of elementary education in a school.
It comes in the wake of a Madras High Court Order in June that directed a matriculation school here
to promote a student detained in Class VI to Class VII.
The State government has, over the years, been following a no detention policy' till Class V in its
schools. Henceforth, the policy will be applicable till Class VIII.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, which came into effect on April 1,
2010, prohibits detention of any student in the same class as per sections 4 (Special provision for
children not admitted to or who have not completed elementary education), 16 (Prohibition of
holding back and expulsion) and 30 (Examination and completion certificate) of the Act.
The High Court, too, had cited the RTE Act and said that the detention of the child in class VI was
illegal.
Whatever is said in the Act is applicable to all schools governed by various boards. The directors
and respective boards are in the process of sending circulars to all schools, D. Jagannathan,
chairman of the advisory committee on the RTE Act in Tamil Nadu, told The Hindu on Thursday.
In case there is no provision for completion of elementary education in a school, a child shall have
the right to seek transfer to a school run by the government, or by a local authority, or an aided
school, the GO states.

n fact, Section 29 (2) (h) of the Act makes comprehensive and continuous evaluation (CCE)
mandatory, wherein schools are expected to use test results to improve teaching and learning of the
child. Unlike traditional board examinations, the CCE visualises evaluation as a diagnostic tool to
improve learning. It is critical to measure learning outcomes to improve the quality of education.
You cant improve what you dont measure, says an official.
Over the last few months articles have been written regarding the deteriorating quality of
elementary education, attributing it largely to the no-detention policy under the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. Having worked in the ministry of human
resource development for over five years, I consider it appropriate to allay certain fears and
apprehensions, and inform citizens regarding the various nuances of this legislation, about which
most people would have known only through the prism of the media; very few may have actually
read its fine print.
To put things in perspective, the RTE Act is a consequential legislationto give effect to Article
21A of the Constitution, introduced by the 88th Amendment to the Constitution in 2002 titled
Right to Education which states that The State shall provide free and compulsory education to
all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.
The Act was therefore to give effect to a fundamental right and overnight changed the approach of
elementary educationfrom a welfare approach to a rights and entitlements approach.
The law is at an embryonic stagejust six years old, and even a eight-year cycle of elementary
education is not over.
Also, it has taken considerable time to give effect to its various provisions, considering that
implementation involves concerted action by the central government, the state government and
local authorities, for over 13 crore children taught by over 44 lakh teachers in over 11 lakh schools,
along with thousands of district and block/cluster level teacher training institutes and resource
centres, and educational administrators, apart from the large amount of financial resources it entails.
In 2009, there were an estimated 5.23 lakh vacant posts of teachers, while 5.1 lakh additional
teacher posts had to be created to meet the Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) norm stipulated under the
RTE Act. Further, over 8.6 lakh teachers in the state-run government elementary schools did not
possess the nationally recognised professional teacher qualifications. These, and several other
deficiencies, straddled elementary education at the commencement of the Act.
By far the most virulent criticism of the RTE Act is its no-detention policy. The attack is on section
16 of the RTE Act, which states that No child shall be held back or expelled from school till the
completion of elementary education. This matter had come up before a three-judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs U.O.I. & Anr, in which
Justice Radhakrishnan had ruled that Holding back in a class or expulsion may lead to large
number of drop outs from the school, which will defeat the very purpose and object of the Act,
which is to strengthen the social fabric of democracy and to create a just and humane society to
provide for special tuition for the children who are found to be deficient in their studies, the idea is
that failing a child is an unjust mortification of the child personality, too young to face the failure in
life in his or her early stages of education.
The argument, that because of the no-detention policy, learning levels have gone down, may appear
far-fetched. Firstly, learning level is determined by several factorsteaching practices, teacher
quality, availability of books, socio-economic background of children, school environment, etc. To
isolate one factor, policy of no-detention, as a sole determinant of lowering of learning levels is
neither plausible nor justifiable. Secondly, implicit in that argument is that children study only
because of the fear of being detained. This is a serious charge and hits at the very bottom of the
entire process and philosophy of school education.
Thirdly, the no detention policy cannot be viewed in isolation but has to be looked at in conjunction
with other provisions of the Act. The provisions of having an evaluation process which is
continuous and comprehensive, having a class environment which is free from fear, trauma and
anxiety, that there is no physical punishment or mental harassment of a child, ensuring that teachers
perform their duty, including the requirement of transacting the curriculum as per schedule and in
accordance with the laid down procedure, and assessing the ability of each child and providing
additional instructions. All these are important determinants of quality education and improving
learning levels. Gunning the no-detention policy is an alibi for sub-par teacher performance and
classroom practices.
Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze have argued (India : Development and Participation, 2002) that
education demands a good a deal of time and attention, for instance, preparing a child to go to
school, stimulating his or her interest, helping her with homework, and even establishing a rapport
with the teachers which is much more demanding for underprivileged families, especially when the
child is first-generation school-goer. Based on empirical evidence, they found, that a large number
of children, from marginalised sections, have left school after being detained, having found the
school environment unfriendly and hostile. Children have dropped out due to traumatising
experiences of physical punishment, social discrimination and other forms of discouragement effect
such as alienating curriculum, inactive classrooms, and indifferent teachers. Surely, doing away
with the provision of no-detention may hit hardest the children belonging to the poorest of the poor.
Let us be patient, as there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the RTE Act. Since the Act contains
a set of visionary statements for conferring a fundamental right to the children of our country,
involving multiple stakeholders, and huge financial resources, it will take time for its objectives to
be achieved. Given the vastness of our country, its efficacy and success will have inter- and intra-
regional variations.
The author is Vikram Sahay, a civil servant. Views are personal