Sadgopal says the High Court order on 25% seats is no
substitute for Common School System and that what is
needed is a national policy and unambiguous political
resolve to transform the access as well as quality of
mainstream government school education

I continue to be confused about what exactly everyone
means by CSS. As far as I know neither the Social
Jurist case nor the order for 25% seats in it make CSS
claim. And as far as I can see attempt to improve
government school education in residual resource space
is no substitute for CSS.

The MPISG case in High Court seeks implementation of
CSS as set out in Delhi Master Plan 2001, a schema
that educationists seem not to inclined to consider.
The ‘free choice for the classes, zero choice for the
masses’ in the real world problem that Sadgopal
laments seems matched by – if not rooted in – similar
problem in the utopia of discourse: 'free space for
dissent, zero space for assent'.

[In the MPISG case notice was issued on 17.12.2003
and, after the respondents failed to reply or appear,
on 04.02.2004 the Court has directed replies and
personal appearance by the end of the month. This,
like Arjun Camp slum cases, also seem to call for
urgent discussion]

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.