At the fag end of the interim government’s term, the decision-makers decided to go for an education law by drafting an ordinance. The draft was posted on the education ministry’s website on February 1, giving citizens barely a week to submit comments. This breathtaking sense of urgency of the authorities, on a matter that has been under discussion for 15 years, has raised some eyebrows. After all, since the first draft of the law was sent to the cabinet for approval, it was returned at least four times with questions about the provisions. Officials now say that public opinions and official feedback would be analysed and integrated into the final draft, which would require time.
According to an estimate, 149 countries recognise the right to education in their national constitutions, and 155 countries legally guarantee nine or more years of compulsory education for children. The proposed Education Act does neither; it only reiterates a 1990 act on compulsory primary education up to Class 5, which has yet to be fully implemented.
Education is a complex area of service offered through both public and private institutions, serving diverse objectives and populations of various ages, and divided into many sub-sectors. So, what may be the nature of a national education law, and what purposes may it serve?
Countries have a plethora of laws to regulate and guide their education services. In Bangladesh, apart from the compulsory education law of 1990, we have had other laws, including the 1974 act on the takeover of primary schools by the government; various acts concerning university education and individual public universities; the Non-Formal Education Act, 2014; the Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1961; and the Registration of Private Schools Ordinance, 1962, among others.
The point is that complex and diverse education services operate under a variety of legal provisions, and their requirements can hardly be met by a single umbrella law. Nor can a master law replace all other education laws and legal provisions. The government always needs to—and frequently does—issue additional rules, regulations, and orders governing the operation of educational institutions and services.
What may qualify as a national education law is one that provides for a major national commitment of great magnitude that significantly expands the scope of public provision and marks a fundamental change in education services. A major shift in educational policy and state obligations may be reinforced by law to guarantee the realisation of such change.
A case in point is the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 in India. It makes education a fundamental right for children aged 6-14 under Article 21-A of the Indian constitution. This article itself resulted from the 84th Amendment to the constitution adopted in 2002. The RTE mandates free and compulsory elementary education in neighbourhood schools, prohibits capitation fees or interviews for admission, and requires private schools to reserve 25 percent of seats for economically disadvantaged children in the neighbourhood.
The draft education law in Bangladesh does not envisage any significant change in the purposes or provisions of education services. The avowed purpose of the law, as stated in the draft, is to “frame a complementary and supplementary law by consolidating prevailing laws and rules for greater effectiveness.”
The consolidation of existing laws and rules into a new act may offer administrative convenience, but it does little to promote structural and operational reform to make the education system more equitable and inclusive, or to improve its quality and relevance. A framework law that facilitates the much-discussed and much-needed transformation of education would: a) recognise the universal right to primary and secondary education and specify the duties and obligations of various actors; b) create a structure of decentralised school management with greater accountability; c) indicate principles and criteria for the adequacy and efficacy of public funding for education; and d) facilitate new personnel management to enhance the professional status and performance of teachers. None of these issues is addressed in the draft law.
A contentious issue—and apparently the reason for the draft being sent back repeatedly by the cabinet—is that of commercial coaching centres, guidebooks, and notebooks, reputedly a multi-billion-taka industry. Many education activists have seen these as the culprits behind our educational ills and have advocated banning them by law. They have missed the point that guidebooks, notebooks, and coaching centres are symptoms of the disease rather than its main causes. The real causes are poor pedagogy, weak classroom learning, and examinations that reward memorised answers. Attempting to treat the symptoms while neglecting the disease would only create bigger problems.
The new draft law opts for a compromise by proposing the formulation of rules over the next three to five years to regulate guidebooks, notebooks and private coaching. It does not address the fundamental issues of poor teaching and learning in schools.
The arguments given in favour of the draft law are that something is better than nothing, or that an imagined perfect law should not be the enemy of a good law. It is not clear, however, what is good about the proposed law if it lacks the essential elements of much-needed education reform. Nor is it clear what beneficial actions cannot be taken in the absence of such a law.
The two government advisers to the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education and the Ministry of Education have belatedly asked two consultation committees to provide recommendations on necessary reforms in primary and secondary education. Another committee is working on the “vision” for future education.
It is expected that the reform ideas emerging from these committees will form a reform agenda for the newly elected government following the upcoming election and referendum on reforms. One expects education to become a key topic of discourse with the new government. One also wonders whether the current decision-makers are eager to protect the status quo and are concerned about potential reforms and the uncertainties of change. Do they wish to lock in existing structures and provisions through protectionist legal measures? Would it not be more appropriate to consider an umbrella law in light of the anticipated education reform discussions? Those who pursue the cause of change are understandably unhappy about the prospect of potential new obstacles to reform.
Prof Dr Manzoor Ahmed is the convener of the Consultation Committee on Reform in Primary and Non-Formal Education appointed by the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, and the convener of the Consultation Committee on Reform in Secondary Education appointed by the Ministry of Education.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
