<B>National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy</B>

The Dansighania report does not meet the aspirations of teachers. It appears that the ministry of Education has worked out a new scheme to overhaul the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy which has over the last two or three years been a bone of contention between itself and the unions in the primary sector. Apparently the committee presided by Mr Dansighania has come out with a series of recommendations which will be implemented in the course of next year.

The NLNS project started in 2003 and at the very outset it gave rise to an uproar among teachers who felt that it was introduced in a haphazard and inappropriate manner. The project has continued in schools as teachers have been paid an allowance in same respect and all the way the ministry has been announcing that it would bring modifications to it.

Teachers have protested against it mainly because the PRB Report decreased the amounts of allowances paid in a substantial manner. The unions could not do any thing as the PRB Report of 2003 withdrew their right to declare disputes on any of its recommendations and almost all teachers accepted the same report. It was for this reason that teachers have had to bear with the project in schools.

As soon as the project started, teachers’ unions made representations to say that it was dishonest on the part of government to reduce the quantum of allowances but the authorities pointed out that the PRB had partially integrated the allowances to their salaries. Teachers have also been wild regarding the way the project was implemented as only one category among them have had to bear its brunt when allowances are paid to everyone irrespective of their categories. It is (GP) General Purpose teachers who have formulated the main criticisms against the project and the ministry has so far been indifferent to all their demands.

The fact worthy of note in this regard is that proposals for redistribution of responsibilities as well as other points have been made in a paper submitted for the successful implementation of the project as far back as 2003 but they have remained unheeded by the authorities. The Dansighnia report seems to have retained the proposals made in the memorandum of the unions in 2003 to the effect that both GP as well as AL teachers should be involved in the project and that the time allocation for it should be reviewed . But along with these recommendations there was also the demand for re-establishing the initial rates of allowances agreed between the unions and the authorities at negotiations carried out at the time when the project was for the first time initiated in schools.

The unions’ main demands were linked to quantum of allowances and in all schools teachers relate it to the time of dismissal of classes. It is strange to read the statement of the representative of the major union of teachers in the press who has said that he welcomes the report favorably and that the main demands of the unions have been accepted which is apparently not the case as no allowances have been adjusted and the time of dismissal of classes has remained unchanged. It is clear that this time the union has been ambushed as it has formed part of the Dansighania committee and it is probably for this reason that it says that it welcomes the report. The fact also remains that teachers themselves have not yet pronounced themselves on the issue and there are already signs that they can hardly accept it.

Most of the time it is teachers who have contested reports. This time it appears that we are heading for a situation where they may contest the report as well as their union’s representative who has welcomed it without consulting them . Such a situation does not seem to have arisen in the past. The course of events in this connection now seems quite unpredictable in schools as the report can hardly be said to meet the aspirations of teachers.

<B>A TEACHER</B>