Dr. RAM MANOHR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
FINAL DRAFT ON
Education accessibility accessibility in India and copyright copyright debate
SUBMITTED TO: -
SUBMITTED BY:BY:-
Miss Priya Anuragini
Priyanshu Priyansh u Kumar Singh
Asst. Prof. of la
S!"tion: - B #oll no.:- $%& S!m!st!r: - 'th
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all I would like to thank my teacher, Miss Priya Aunragini for giving me such a golden opportunity to work on this project. The project is a result of a research study, hard work and labour, that is put into to make it worth reading and this was possible only with the constant support of my subject teacher. I wish to acknowledge that in completing this project I had full support of my library staff. This project would not have been completed without the help of my university’s library Dr. adhu !imaye library which had various "uality books on the chosen topic and the university’s internet facility that helped us in making my research a success.
EDUCATIONAL ACCESSBILITY IN INDIA
This #olicy $rief describes and e%plains patterns of access to schools in India. It outlines policy and legislation on access to education and provides an analysis of access, vulnerability and e%clusion. The "uantitative data is supported by a review of research which e%plains the patterns of access and e%clusion. It is based on findings from the &ountry 'nalytic (eport on 'ccess to $asic )ducation in India *+ovinda and $andyopadhyay, --/ which can be found on the &()'T) website.
0hy educational access is important in India In 123- India made a &onstitutional commitment to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14. In -- a constitutional amendment made free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 5614. 7et, universal access to elementary education remains elusive and "uality of provision erratic. #rovision of "uality education in India is an enormous "uantitative challenge. In --46--3, data available from the inistry of 8uman (esource Development *8(D/ showed that 1 million students were enrolled in 1.-4 million elementary schools *grades 16/ across the country *+oI, --9a/. This accounted for appro%imately : of children in the 3614 year age group in that year *+oI, --9b/. ;ver the past two decades demand for schooling in India has increased, but provision is une"ual. The
Indian #olicy &onte%t )ducation in India is the joint responsibility of the central and state governments, and educational rights to education are provided for within the &onstitution. Further commitments to the universali>ation of education as well as the legal, administrative and financial frameworks for the government6funded education system are found in two main sources. These are the on6going series of Five 7ear #lans for ing repetition and dropout. 's a result of the <#) policy initiatives changes are being made on the ground. ' massive infrastructure development and teacher recruitment drive was initiated nationally. <#) *125/ focused on the need for improvements to school environments *including building conditions, availability of tap water and toilet facilities/, instructional material and teacher training. The District #rimary )ducation #rogramme *1224/ brought additional resources to the sector through the involvement of bilateral and multilateral donors. Aillage education committees, parent6teacher and mother6teacher associations have become active across the country. !egislative moves to bring elementary education under #anchayati (aj Institutions *local self6governments/ have given further impetus to community mobili>ation at the grassroots level. Despite these changes, "uality of provision continues to be a concern and is highlighted in the Tenth *--6--9/ and )leventh *--96 -1/ Five 7ear #lans, as well as =='. Aarious government schemes target disadvantaged children. The
'lternative, Innovative and )ducation +uarantee =cheme *)+=B'I)/ provides education in smaller, isolated habitations in rural areas and B or urban slums that do not "ualify as regular formal schoolsC and schooling to difficult6to6reach groups such as working and migrating children. The
Patterns of educational access in India S"hool su((ly: - The number of primary schools has grown rapidly from 32,--- in
125 to 959,--- in --3 and at upper primary from 1@4,--- to 93,---. In --@ around 9: of habitations had a primary school within a distance of 1 km and 9: of habitations had an upper primary school within @ km *<&)(T, --3/. In addition, the number of private pre6primary, primary and upper primary schools has also increased considerably. 8owever, government and local bodies continue to be the main providers managing around 21: of primary and 9@: of upper primary schools. any new schools particularly those opened under the )+=B'I) scheme are small in si>e. ost are located in rural areas. 'round : of children are educated in primary schools with 3- students or fewer *DI=) --365/. Euestions of "uality of provision persist with many schools having weak infrastructure and poor teaching and learning conditions. Initial a""!ss to !)u"ation: - 'ccording to gross enrolment *+)(/ data available at the
national level, India has achieved near universal enrolment in primary education in most
areas. The average +)( across all India was 1-.3: at the primary level and 9-.3: at the upper primary level in --46-3. +)(s at primary varied from less than -: *&handigarh, #unjab, to more than 1-: *&hhattisgarh, 'runachal #radesh/, and at upper primary from less than 5-: *ttar #radesh, Gharkhand, $ihar/ to over 1--: *Tamil
children in India. Data reported in the &'( suggests that in --1, about 44 million *or .3: of the total child population/ were out of school. $y --3 estimates varied from a low of about 9 million to a high of about @- million. The differences in estimates arise from different methods of sampling and accounting for repetition, drop out and over age enrolment. Inter6state variations are "uite vast. In The &ensus of India in --1 reported that about 9-: of the total out6of6school children in India in the 56 1- year old age group were concentrated in ttar #radesh, $ihar, adhya #radesh, 0est $engal and (ajasthan. 'ccording to the 51st (ound
irregularly, learn little and repeat grades. These children are at risk of dropping out.
ed achievement data across India. Una""ount!) for "hil)r!nH 6 0hile statistics and official programmes recogni>e large
groups of children that might be e%cluded from education, a substantial number of children in India are unaccounted for and unregistered. These children may be migrants, street children or children living in unauthori>ed slums. any of these children will not be accessing education Transition (att!rnsH 6
primary stage. Data collected on all6India basis under the District Information =ystem in )ducation *DI=)/ for --36-5 showed thatH on average, 15: of children who reach +rade 3 fail to make the move from primary to upper primary school. =imilarly about 13: of children who reach +rade fail to make the move from upper primary to secondary schooling because of a lack of schooling facilities near their homes, the direct and indirect costs, and because they haven’t reached appropriate attainment levels.
The Causes of Exclusion There are many interacting factors which contribute to e%clusion from schooling. The Indian conte%t is so diverse that social stratification, gender ine"uity, location and poverty vary greatly across =tates and communities and often interact. Together they can form a comple% ne%us of e%clusion and it is important to understand relationships between factors. +o"ation of s"hoolH 6 The ation *<==;/ data *+;I,
--5/ suggests that although distance between home and schools is not a critical issue, the remoteness of habitations within rural areas still affects the participation of children, particularly girls and those with disabilities. 0hile small community based schools help enrolments, there is some concern that many small schools have low standards and limited amounts of meaningful learning.
Po,!rtyH 6 ' major factor affecting schooling access is poverty. The children of the poor
tend to be relegated to the margins of the system, and eventually pushed out altogether. 8owever, a closer analysis shows that economic impoverishment itself is deeply embedded in discriminatory social structure. !n)!r: 6 +irls are more likely than boys to be not attending school in India. +ender
disparities in enrolments have reduced, especially in richer =tates, but girls remain more likely to drop out where enrolment rates are low. $oys often withdraw from school for economic reasons, while girls are more likely to be involved in domestic chores. For some *generally/ rural households, educating girls continues to be seen as unnecessary.
Policy foc! "#$ r%!%"rc& '"(! T&% Co#)ry A#"ly)ic R%(or) for I#$i" &i'&li'&)%$ )&% #%%$ for r%!%"rc& )o foc! o# )&% follo*i#' )%clusion from schooling as a process rather than a single event. !ooking at life
•
histories of childrenC tracking them individually and in groupsC looking at children as they join school, move up the grades or drop out. 'nalysis of the comple% relationships between factors such as gender, disadvantaged
•
social groups, location and poverty. !ongitudinal studies on factors which affect decision making and choices around
•
schooling. It is particularly important to understand about how households make choices around educating girls and B or boys. )mpirical studies are needed which e%amine the e%clusion of the many children in
•
India who are not accounted for, including street children, migrants and children with special needs.
It is important to understand how schooling provision and the "uality of schooling
•
impacts on decision making at the household level with regard to schooling. =tudies are also needed which analy>e the links between )&&), nutrition, health and
•
access.
Co(yri'&) +ir%*or! #romising the audience fireworks, intellectual depth, and the finest thinking on all sides of this issue, $ill (osenblatt, president of +iant =teps edia Technology =trategies and publisher of D( 0atch, introduced the three debatersH Dean arks, an influential entertainment industry lawyer and senior vice president of intellectual property, corporate business development, and strategy at 0arner $ros. )ntertainmentC Goe raus, co6founder and president of Digital&onsumer.org, a digital rights advocacy group with 3-,--membersC and Tim ;J(eilly, founder and &); of ;J(eilly $ooks, a leading technology publishing company. In his introduction, (osenblatt lightly touched on daily media headlines about the competing lawsuits by entertainment and Internet companies. 8e noted intense lobbying campaigns by the entertainment industry and the efforts of consumer advocates to influence the positioning of congressional public policy. (osenblatt e%plained the format for the pseudo6debateH 8e would start off by asking "uestions, and each debater would be given an opportunity to comment. In his first "uestion, (osenblatt asked speakers to turn back the clock and imagine how they would reinvent and plan for a content6centric Internet. ;J(eilly led off with a spirited response. I would have left things as they were ... and let the future unfold, he said. #iracy is progressive ta%ation.... 0e need to embrace thefuture rather than KprotectL the past.... +oogle and 7ahooM built substantial businesses on free content. Technology brings great advantages to consumers, said arks in response. &onsumers havenJt shied away from DADs with copy protection. DAD sales have skyrocketed, he
told the audience. 8e cited DADs as a great e%ample of what is right about the entertainment industryJs ability to give customers what they want with a technology they accept. 8e reasoned that the emergence of new technologies and business models did not mean that laws should be thrown out the window. ;J(eilly countered that he has an aversion to laws that made copy protection illegal and said, I object to companies that use fear6mongering to buy time and use law as a weapon to suppress competition. onsum!rs /ant to r!at!
The debate was off and running. (osenblatt asked if technology has a responsibility or incentive to provide intellectual property protection that respects copyright. 'merican consumers get what they want even if itJs illegal, said raus in response. 8e commented on the differences he saw between consumers in the analog and digital worlds. 'nalog consumers tend to be passive, he said, describing those who sit back and accept content on an as is basis. Digital consumers of the future will be engaged participants who want to be creators of new forms of content.
create something entirely new with digital content. 8e said this is all part of the unintended uses that are driving new business models for digital content. 8is idea took on a whole new meaning when he played clips from a video he created in honor of his 96week6old son. 'ttendees saw a video of a beautiful baby augmented by sound and film clips of Gim &arrey as a flummo%ed lawyer and ike yers in his role as 'ustin #owers. The audience had an audiovisual e%perience underlining rausJ point that consumers use digital content to create new forms from multiple content resources. *If you were wondering, raus let the audience know that he purchased the sound clips used in his movie./ =peaking of unintended uses, (osenblatt held up his new video cell phone. 8e said it replaces the pictures of his baby that he once carried in his wallet. Busin!ss Mo)!ls
(osenblatt asked which business model can make the transition from the consumer world of NI want to a new consumer world of NI want it and will pay for it. The response was unanimous. +ive customers what they wantM 8owO asked (osenblatt. The three speakers talked at length about the evolution of pay6per6use and subscription models for music. DADs were touted as the gold standard for the consumer market. DAD sales and rental revenue demonstrate that itJs possible to have a successful product with copy6 protection controls. 'ddressing the solid acceptance of digital media purchases, ;J(eilly said that in --4 his companyJs digital outlet will surpass $arnes P
how to make it available for a hypothetical Q@ for a one6time view, with no ability to make a permanent copy.
BIBLIOGRAPH
www.policybreifindia.com www.legalservice.com www.infotoday.com
