A Review of Non-Formal Education in the Context of Education for all in India

The Indian Constitution recognizes that education may be a catalyst for social transformation. A research paper with a focus on social equity. In the Preamble, the people's commitment to upholding individual rights to free speech, press, assembly, religion, and worship, as well as to ensuring that all citizens have an equal chance at success in life, and to preserving the integrity of the nation as a whole, is reaffirmed. If we are serious about ensuring that everyone has a fair shot at success, then we must ensure that everyone is literate. The Preamble lays forth the Constitution's fundamental framework, which cannot be changed, and may be used to interpret the scope of the Bill of Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Many a dry Constitutional provision has been given new life by judicial interpretation. For example, the broad sense in which the terms "personal" and "free" are used has implications for the study of literacy. Justice Bhagwati wrote the following in Francis Coralie Mulin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981):

The Supreme Court once again cited the preceding rulings in this area in its verdict in Bandhua Mukti Morcha, etc. vs. Union of India (J.T. 1997 (5) SC 285).

education to the 14th grade. The state must provide the resources and opportunities outlined in Article 39 (e) and (f) of the Constitution to guarantee that children are not exploited because of their poverty or whims.‖[2]

SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The 42nd, 73rd, 74th, and 83rd Amendment Acts are all examples of Constitutional changes with direct implications for the field of education. These changes concern the enabling of education's inclusion on the Concurrent List, the devolution of authority to local organizations, and the formalization of primary education as a Fundamental Right (from its present status of Directive Principles though this has been ruled as such through judicial interpretation even otherwise). Constitution, being a part of the Preamble itself, judicial interpretation has been sought on the different facets of this principle of equality of educational opportunity. For many, egalitarianism in education is seen as a powerful force for the achievement of a just, more equitable society through its contribution to greater social mobility, the ‗breaking of any connection between the distribution of education and distribution of personal income‘ (Blaug). Yet the “equality of education” concept can be given a variety of interpretations, each leading to different policy outcomes. In particular, “equality of education” may concern equality of access to education, equality of educational treatment or equality of ultimate educational performance.[8] Our Courts have wrestled with this problem in the face of affirmative action or what is known as ‗positive discrimination‘ in favour of the deprived sections while at the same time preserving the needs of quality of education and fair play. The argument in this regard is somewhat on the following lines: ―The liberal goal of providing education according to each individual‘s capacity or aptitude (rather than his socio-economic background) is unhelpful because the criteria used for identifying aptitudes, or ‗intelligence‘ are themselves correlated with the social background. Hence society must adopt special methods to compensate for the deficiencies of the environment in which children grow and which account largely for their unequal educational performance; this would take the form of a national policy of ‗positive discrimination‘ in favour of the underprivileged. The Constitutional provisions have come in very useful to resolve what are essentially political and ideological objectives and the policy conflict of parental free-choice versus educational equality (should education be available in accordance with parental willingness to pay or in relation to capacity to learn?), to avoid bringing about a marked decline in educational standards.[9]

The huge volume of litigation and the mass of decided cases interpreting constitutional provisions are thus a sufficient testimony to the usefulness of constitutional provision in this vital field. The pronouncements of the Courts have been on varied subjects, affecting the quality and quantity of educational services not only encompassing service and management equities, but also such academic questions as medium of instruction access and autonomy of institutions. That the Government has sought to bring forward amendments also shows its imperative to continue to use this document to pursue this welfare objective. In fact, the sheer load of litigation may be proving a bane in one sense, negating the very purpose for which such Constitutional provisions are sought. It has also been lamented that follow-up action on Constitutional Amendments had either not taken place, or slow in implementation.[10] responsibility for promoting economic transformation. However, the Constitution, the source of all power, mandates that judges catalyze and control, monitor and mandate by writs, orders and direction - vide Arts. 32 and 226 - so that they may have genuine faith and obedience to the Constitution and declare, "thy will be done." In the past, judicial interventions enforcing State commitments in education have been useful, and they will likely remain so in the future. [11]

NON-FORMAL EDUCATION

In the Indian setting, "Non-Formal Education" has come to signify just an alternate delivery method for primary school students who are unable to attend regular classes. For this reason, the scope of non-formal education has been narrowed to re-enrolling formerly school-dropout youth. Such youth are typically referred to as "drop-outs" in the broadest sense. However, many of these kids end up dropping out of school for financial or cultural reasons. [12] Due to the primary school system's limited reach in India, many children may be labeled "stay-outs." Many kids are also what we may call "push-outs," in addition to "pull-outs" and "stay-outs." These kids don't see the value or appeal in elementary education. To achieve the constitutional mandate that all children up to the age of 14 get a free and obligatory education, we must ensure that all students receive an engaging and useful education. Millions of low-income youngsters in rural and urban areas cannot afford to attend school during the day for a number of reasons. Therefore, it is imperative to create an effective alternative educational system that guarantees all children access to a solid foundational education. One such option that has developed is non-traditional education. [13] As early as 1976, nine educationally behind states throughout the nation were convinced to launch NFE centers as an alternative to traditional Elementary Education. In 1988, when the National Policy on Education (1986) was implemented, the Central Government backed a nationwide program of Non-Formal Education in places such as urban slums, rural areas, deserts, and hills. State governments and nonprofits with an educational focus, especially in remote or underserved communities, were expected to actively participate in the Non-Formal Education plan. [14]

Basic Education for All has been an increasing national priority since 1986. In order to do this, the government has launched a number of elementary and primary school assistance programs. Based on what has been learned about the effectiveness of non-formal education since 1976, and especially

moderate success, Non-Formal Education has won over many low-income parents in rural areas who want to educate their children but for whom the traditional, all-day school model is unaffordable. Non-Formal Education's viability has improved during the last eight years. The legitimacy and attractiveness of the Non-Formal Education project has been bolstered by the participation of approximately 650 volunteer Agencies. [15]

In 1988, when the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) developed the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of the Non-Formal Education, the NCERT established a full-fledged Department of Non-Formal Education. Non-Formal Education was a subset of other categories until 1988. A formal Department was established to recognize Non-Formal Education's value as an alternative to traditional primary schooling. Since Non-Formal Education prioritized re-enrolling students from populations with high rates of illiteracy, this department was also tasked with managing the Education to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes program between the years of 1988 and 1995. Non-Formal and Alternative Education Department was established in 1995 after a reorganization and name change. This restructuring has confirmed the value of informal education as a complement to conventional primary schooling. The department is currently well-positioned to contribute significantly to the realization of the national aim of Universal Elementary Education..[16]

The division was designated as a National Resource Centre for Non-Formal Education in light of the Central Scheme of Non-Formal Education that was put into place in 1988. The following are some of the duties and responsibilities of the division:

• Non-Formal Education Scheme Implementation Help for State and Voluntary Agencies Providing academic and technical support for state and voluntary agencies.

• Non-Formal Education personnel training and model evolution

• Creating resources and methods to put Non-Formal Education into practice

• Conducting basic and action research in all elements of Non-Formal Education

• Implementing a method for assessing students in informal settings

• Building and sustaining state-level infrastructure to support Non-Formal Education program implementation.

In its eight years of operation, the department has worked to accomplish all of the aforementioned goals and objectives. In an effort to build academic and technical capacity in the States and among the Voluntary Agencies implementing Non-Formal Education, the Department has engaged in a wide range of initiatives. This document describes the division's many endeavors between the years 1988 and 1996. [17]

When we talk about "non-formal education," we're referring to any program outside of a school's official curriculum and institution that aims to broaden young people's knowledge, talents, aptitudes, and competences in areas like personal development, social skills, and civic engagement. Voluntary, ideally accessible to all, an organized process with educational goals, participatory and learner centered, with a focus on life skills and active citizenship, based on the involvement of both individual and group learning with a collective approach, and focused on the development of the whole person: these are the main characteristics of non-formal education. Because learning is seen as a continuous process throughout a person's life, learning involves understanding and enhancing skills, and if an individual does not make an effort to enhance his skills and aptitudes, then learning will not take place in an effective manner, it is understood that non-formal education contributes to the development of the abilities and skills of the individuals and the community at large.

1. Govt orders/ letters of Royal Figures/Ministries/ Commissions/High Courts/Supreme Court for Urdu/JUH 2. Government of India (1986a), National Policy on Education 1986. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. 3. Government of India (1992c), The Programme of Action (1992) for the National 4. NMCME, MHRD, Govt of India. 5. Ministry of PPG&P, Ministry of Minority Affairs, MHA & Ministry of Defense, Govt. of India. 6. Directorate of Government Examination, AP &TN; Director of Higher Secondary Education, Kerala; Maharshtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education; School Education Department (Secretariat), Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Directorate of School Education & Directorate of College Education (TN) (Under Process). 7. Ministry of Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt of India Vide Letter No NCBC/Member/SA/2012/180 8. Constitutional Provisions for languages under Article 14-16, 29, 30,120,210,343-351 of the Constitution of India 9. Proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, Govt of AP, RC No 4346/GI-2/71 on 16.12.71(Urdu for recruitment). 10. Minister of Education, Govt of Victoria, Australia; Ministry of Education, Govt Of India EM/27/2/52;Ministry of Education & Cultural Affairs OM/72;Ministry of Education &Youth AffairsF.18-27/70.T2 11. Congress of the United States, Washington DC, USA, Vide Letter No NUTS/8/4/11. 12. Ministry of Minority Affairs, Govt of India Dated 24/7/14 15:43 IST/PIB; 16/7/14 20:22 IST/PIB; 22/7/14 17:07 IST/PIB; 22/7/14 17:09 IST/PIB for Social and Educational Uplift of Minorities (To preserve Traditional Ancestral Arts/Crafts and rich heritage of minorities under over all context of Indian culture & to bridge the academic and skill development gaps of the Deeni Madrasa pass-outs with their main stream counterparts); Multi-Sectoral Development Programme for Minorities; Allocation of Fund for Development of Minorities; Policy for Welfare of Minorities. 13. Minister for School Education, Directorate of Non-Formal & Adult Education, Citizen Charter, School Education Department,2008, Govt of TN. 14. Government of Kerala, Degrees & Diplomas recognized by the Government of India-Automatic Recognition- Instructions issued: Public (Services D) Department, G.O. (MS) No.526, Trivandrum(17.07.1965); G.O. MS. No. 45/Public (Ser.)( 20.1.1960); G.O. MS. 145/Public (Ser.)(21.3.1963); G.O. MS. 15. By Order of the Governor (Sir T.G.Rutherford), C.G.Atkin (Manager, Dowlatpore Agricultural Concern). 16. Director Training and Licensing, Technical General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 17. Under Secretary to the Government & PIO, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennei-9 Vide Letter No. 22786/GE 1/2014-1 and 22786/GE1/2014-2 to the Joint Director & PIO, Directorate of Government Examination, Chennei-600006.

LBB, LLM, PhD Scholar