More schools, no admission time donations
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Mirza Md. Adwit Rahman
WE are quite familiar with the spectre of 'donation'. At school admission time, in particular, we fear it the most.
School authorities ask for it in the name of development fees. But, in reality it is a 'bribe' in another name. The wealthy parents pay donation to avoid competition. In lieu of money the less meritorious students get admission. The meritorious are left out. The practice lowers the standard of education.
It is alleged teachers are recruited in lieu of money. How a teacher who had to bribe to get his job can teach students.
A teacher with questionable integrity cannot be expected to teach morality and honesty either. When the future of the future leaders depends on such teachers? What can the society expect? Can they educate our children? Is not it better for the parents to teach their children at home? It would, at least, keep the children away from the corrupt.
The children, who get admission, because their parents bribed the school, learn early in life that the rules can be bent. They also learn that education is not a basic right. This way, the first lesson we teach our children is corruption.
Any discussion on morality and a corruption-free society for a better future, in that case becomes a lip service.
Education is one of the basic rights of every citizen. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure education to all free of cost. But resource constraint restricts the government from materialising this responsibility fully. The affluent can afford better education for their children.
The government should encourage the private sector to open more educational institutions to ensure education for the maximum number of the children. It will minimise the scope for the schools to demand donation. The authorities should strictly monitor its educational institutions to curb the practice of donation-taking for school admission.
WE are quite familiar with the spectre of 'donation'. At school admission time, in particular, we fear it the most.
School authorities ask for it in the name of development fees. But, in reality it is a 'bribe' in another name. The wealthy parents pay donation to avoid competition. In lieu of money the less meritorious students get admission. The meritorious are left out. The practice lowers the standard of education.
It is alleged teachers are recruited in lieu of money. How a teacher who had to bribe to get his job can teach students.
A teacher with questionable integrity cannot be expected to teach morality and honesty either. When the future of the future leaders depends on such teachers? What can the society expect? Can they educate our children? Is not it better for the parents to teach their children at home? It would, at least, keep the children away from the corrupt.
The children, who get admission, because their parents bribed the school, learn early in life that the rules can be bent. They also learn that education is not a basic right. This way, the first lesson we teach our children is corruption.
Any discussion on morality and a corruption-free society for a better future, in that case becomes a lip service.
Education is one of the basic rights of every citizen. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure education to all free of cost. But resource constraint restricts the government from materialising this responsibility fully. The affluent can afford better education for their children.
The government should encourage the private sector to open more educational institutions to ensure education for the maximum number of the children. It will minimise the scope for the schools to demand donation. The authorities should strictly monitor its educational institutions to curb the practice of donation-taking for school admission.