Second, the focus appears to be on infrastructure and enrolment and not to see that the children who go to school actually learn.  The ASER survey by Pratham, in 2007, indicated that 33 per cent of the children surveyed from classes three to five could not read text relevant to class 1 while 40 per cent could not subtract numbers. This Bill does mention learning levels. While Section 24(1)(d) requires teachers to assess the learning ability of each child and supplement additional instructions, the rest of this section, on duties of teachers, requires them to “maintain regularity and punctuality in attending school; conduct and complete the curriculum, etc.” The government apparently believes that an Act of the parliament is needed to ensure that teachers attend school regularly and punctually.

Third, the Bill provides for a uniform curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education within each state. This would limit the freedom of schools to determining the pedagogical content and methodology. Fourth, this Bill states that “it shall be the duty of every parent to admit his child to a neighbourhood school”.  It, however, does not state the consequences of not following this duty. Also, it does not address the issues due to which parents do not admit their children. Fifth, the Bill requires each government and aided school to form a school management committee comprising local elected representatives, parents and teachers. This committee shall monitor the working of the school and the utilisation of grants given to the school. Evidence from Karnataka and several countries in Latin America and Africa on similar committees do not present any conclusive evidence of improvement in quality of schools. While the Bill attempts to lay down some guideposts, it remains an open question whether its provisions are sufficient to achieve this goal. 

... contd.