Setting up of Equal Opportunity Commission

A High Level Committee under the chairpersonship of Justice (Retd.) Rajindar Sachar had, inter alia, made recommendation for setting up of an Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) to address the grievances of deprived groups. Government had set up an Expert Group to examine and determine, inter alia, the structure and functions of an EOC. Based on the Expert Group Report, recommendations of Group of Ministers constituted for this purpose and comments/ inputs received from various stakeholders, a draft Equal Opportunity Commission Bill for setting up of EOC is under consideration of the Government.

As a follow-up action on the Sachar Committee recommendations, the mandate to set up National Data Bank was given to the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. A National Data Bank web page has been created on the website of Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, which at present contains 97 tables on population, education, health and labour & Employment.

Prime Minister’s National Council on Skill Development, National Skill Development Coordination Board and the Office of Adviser to PM on Skill Development have been subsumed into the National Skill Development Agency (NSDA). The NSDA is an autonomous body located in the Ministry of Finance. One of the major functions assigned to the NSDA is to ensure that the skilling needs of the disadvantaged and the marginalized groups like Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), minorities, women and differently-abled persons are taken care of. So far as the erstwhile National Skill Development Coordination Board is concerned, the basic function was to coordinate the skill development activities in the country. The National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) has been set up as a not for profit company, under the M/o Finance, primarily to catalyse private sector initiatives in skill development. Individual Ministries are implementing schemes targeted at different social groups including the minorities.

Making human rights a reality

Making human rights a reality

Progressive judicial pronouncements were a reaction to social action groups and movements that sought judicial intervention to persuade the government to defend the rights of the marginalised

Today, December 10, is commemorated internatiodnally as Human Rights Day. The UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 with a view to bringing a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. It was primarily meant to promote a simple yet powerful idea that all human beings are born free and equal in terms of dignity and rights. With the Declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by any government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 65 years since the Declaration was adopted, many nations including India have made progress in making human rights a human reality. Gradually, the barricades that previously prohibited people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, dignity, and humanity have come down. Public interest litigation and the judicial activism of the Supreme Court played a major role in expanding the scope of human rights and in giving it much-needed legitimacy through some important verdicts. In many places, indiscriminate laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that degraded humans have been abolished, vulnerable groups have been given due recognition and their lives made secure. These progressive judicial pronouncements were a reaction to social action groups and movements seeking judicial intervention to persuade and pressure governments to defend and fulfil the rights of the most marginalised. This progress was not that effortless. People had to fight, organise and campaign in public and private forums to change not only laws, but hearts and minds.

However, there is still much to be done to secure that assurance, that actuality, and progress for all people. We have repeatedly witnessed such human rights violations: awareness about human rights needs to be made universal. Our endeavour should be to mould a society with no gender discrimination and no violence. When women are empowered, that ensures stable societies. Likewise, when leaders of nations empower people through futurist policies, the prosperity of the nations becomes certain. When religion transforms into a spiritual force, people become enlightened citizens with a value system.

While there is acceptance of universal respect and adherence to human rights, infringement of internationally recognised norms continues unabated in almost all parts of the world. The overall situation has been characterised by large-scale breaches of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. It is a fact that India, being the world’s most populous democracy, continues to have considerable human rights problems despite making commitments to deal with some of the most prevalent abuses.

Though India took many proactive steps and followed a welfare state model, the police and the bureaucracy have remained largely colonial in their approach and sought to exert control and power over citizens. The feudal and communal characteristics of the Indian polity, coupled with a colonial bureaucracy, dampened the spirit of freedom, rights and affirmative action enshrined in the Constitution. The country has a booming civil society, free media, and an independent judiciary. However, ongoing violent practices that harm vulnerable groups, corruption, and lack of accountability for their perpetrators, lead to human rights violations. Many women, children, Dalits, tribal communities, religious minorities, people with disabilities, and sexual and gender minorities stay marginalised and continue to suffer discrimination because of the government’s failure to train public officials in stopping discriminatory behaviour. Issues pertaining to police brutality, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests and detention, bonded labour, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, custodial deaths, corruption, labour and migrant rights, sexual violence, refugees, internally displaced people, terrorism, poverty, human trafficking and so on, remain. Continuous attempts are being made by the National Human Rights Commission to address such human rights issues. Some of these issues are being monitored as programmes on the directions of the Supreme Court.

Human Rights Day is an occasion for us to analyse the journey that our nation has undertaken so far on the path sketched by the Constitution, and prepare jointly to make dignity with human rights for all our countrymen a reality. Though scepticism still exists in some quarters, there has been a greater level of acknowledgment of the need to encourage and guard human rights, in spite of the abuse of the human rights discourse by the new imperialist forces.

If human rights need to have genuine meaning, they must be correlated to public involvement, and this participation should be preceded by empowerment of the people.

A sense of empowerment necessitates a sense of dignity, self-worth and the ability to ask questions with a spirit of legal entitlements and political consciousness based on rights. A process of political empowerment and a sense of rights empower citizens to participate in the public sphere. The splendour of human rights has to be maintained with nobility and glory. There cannot be any wearing down of values, deterioration of quality or any cobwebs in the procedure.

(The author, a former Chief Justice of India, is currently Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission)

bureaucracy

The bureaucracy can never be immune to political interference as long as bureaucrats are willing to twist and bend before politicians to get the postings of their choice

The Supreme Court’s recent move to set up a Civil Services Board for the management of babu promotions and emoluments, granting fixed tenure to them, and freeing them of the obligation to obey oral orders from the executive — though a boon to honest bureaucrats who are transferred frequently — has the potential to bring within its wake more harm than good. The Supreme Court has replaced the increasingly erratic and unresponsive executive power with the rule of the judiciary.

GOVERNMENT TO BLAME

Serious issues with this judgment challenge the very core of democracy and that of Parliament’s legislative authority. The UPA government — which through incessant corruption has destroyed executive institutions — is to share the blame for this judicial enthusiasm. A society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of its spirit will eventually cause its spirit to perish. By creating a governance vacuum, the UPA has voluntarily ceded its turf to the judiciary. It implies that an administrative policy paralysis suffered by the country in the hands of the present government has compelled the judiciary to go into matters pertaining to administrative reforms.

First, the Supreme Court has assumed itself to be superior to Parliament and is directing Parliament to enact new laws which seems to be violative of the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers. Although the court has used this power very rarely, it is not a valid argument for using it even once, because assuming another democratic wing’s characteristic power has serious consequences.

There is no clarity on how this petition was maintainable under Article 32. Article 32 is a judicial safeguard for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Administrative reforms, though abundantly desirable, cannot be classified as “fundamental rights” of a citizen, in a very basic application of constitutional law.

The petitioners — former Union Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramanian, former Chief Election Commissioners T.S. Krishnamurthy and N. Gopalaswami, former Indian Ambassador to the U.S., Abid Hussain, former CBI Director Joginder Singh, former Manipur Governor Ved Prakash Marwah and 77 others — are a few individuals who claimed to know the exact mechanics that are most suitable for the functioning of the executive, in accordance with “public interest,” and asked the court to issue binding orders to the legislature to control the executive. So, fewer than 100 citizens — not legislative experts — essentially asked the judiciary to overreach into the domain of the executive. Are the four legs of a democracy not needed to be independent of one another any more? With due respect to the Supreme Court, by directing Parliament to make laws it is clearly undermining the legislative authority of Parliament.

On legal reasoning, the court has been ambiguous at the very least. The Bench has relied heavily on various Administrative Commission reports — the 2004 Hota Commitee on Civil Service Reforms, the 2008 Second Administrative Reforms Commission, the 1997 Conference of Chief Ministers on Effective and Responsive Administration and the 1968 All-India Service Conduct Rules. By merely reiterating the reports of government-appointed bodies and directing Parliament to enact a new law, the judiciary has essentially ignored the limited scope of its power, that is, not to encroach upon the constitutional authority of the legislature.

The order in passing refers to the 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India to establish its jurisdiction to issue orders of this nature according to Article 32 read with Article 142. Article 142 deals with procedural aspects and the two words “complete justice” cannot enlarge its scope. In construing the expression, “complete justice,” the scheme of the Article should be looked into. It is not right to construe words in a vacuum and then insert the meaning into an Article, explains Dr. R. Prakash in the treatise “Complete justice under Article 142” published in 2001.

POOR IMPLEMENTATION

Now, we come to the question of implementation. Where the UPA has methodically thwarted systems, what could be better than a multi-member independent Civil Services Board in theory? One in practice! In Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave similar orders on police reforms, directing State governments to implement the order in six months from its passage, but seven years hence none of the States has actually implemented the order. State politicians can challenge its establishment on the ground of intrusion into State rights. Even in States where Civil Service Boards have already been constituted — as in Uttar Pradesh — arbitrary transfers and postings are the prevalent norms. Since 2008, Uttar Pradesh has also had a transfer policy. But random transfers — often to punish “erring” officers — are the norm. The case of Durga Shakti Nagpal is the most recent example of the fact that even established boards have little force when facing political will.

Some of what the court suggests as safeguards are already available to civil servants but they have been used rarely. For instance, an officer can record any minister’s oral instructions to him and send them to the minister for confirmation. One cannot really say if it is more the threat of transfer or the incentive of a patron-client relationship fairly early in their bureaucratic career that stops officers from using this provision. It is not certain that governments will do what the court has ordered. If the legislation asked for is not passed in three months, whom will the court haul up? The Chief Minister or the Speaker? That could provoke a constitutional crisis. Assuming that power comes with responsibility and accountability, should orders that are not enforceable be issued?

The Supreme Court order is not going to change the nature of the senior bureaucracy. The Cabinet, instead of the Civil Services Board, continues to have control over appointments made at the highest level. As long as bureaucrats are willing to twist and bend before politicians to get their choice of top postings at the end of a 25-year-long career, the bureaucracy can never be immune to political interference, and let’s not forget post-retirement incentives. Not only incentives, there is fear too. If civil servants begin to believe that even years after retiring, they can be criminally prosecuted for a mistake made in good faith or for a bona fide decision taken on the basis of the data that was available, there will be serious repercussions on the morale of serving officers.

Also, fixed tenure takes away the privilege of Ministers to work with the best officers of their choosing. No system should prevent a Chief Minister from choosing his own Secretary and the Chief Secretary of the State. When there can be alternative procedural safeguards to save honest officers from arbitrary transfers, why impose less-able officers on Ministers? Take the example of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who replaced his Finance Secretary and Chief Economic Adviser, and put together his team. Is that flexibility to be always denied to a Minister?

While it is necessary to stay the hand of politicians, so is it important to reform the bureaucracy. For instance, one-third of the All-India Service officers are “conferred IAS officers” promoted from the State services to key positions such as District Collectors, Secretaries to government and heads of departments. The three to five year security of tenure in key assignments enjoyed by conferred IAS officers is absolute — an almost sure-shot recipe for dishonesty and lack of integrity.

Can you consider the perils of a politically weak future government where every Minister would be answerable to the bureaucrats for the transfers he orders to ensure better administration? The danger of a country that is ruled by the judiciary is bested only by that which is ruled by the bureaucracy — voters cannot end their tenure in office every five years!

ias topper

S. Divyadharshini (AIR- 1, 2010)

"Being confident, dedicated and consistent will help crack the exam"

What were the basic mantras of your success?

Ans: I had put in hard work and was confident that I could clear the exam. So, hard work, dedication and confidence paved way for my success.

What were your strategies for the lengthy syllabus of General Studies for both Prelims and Mains?

Ans: For prelims, I studied extensively concentrating basically on facts. For the mains it was a more intensive study with subject knowledge. Further, internet as a source helped me enormously in my preparation.

What should be the basis of selecting optionals?

Ans: One's interest in the subject should be the prime consideration. Apart from this, availability of guidance and materials of study and the vastness of the syllabus would also form the basis.

How did you plan your optional strategy?

Ans: First, I took Public Administration as my first optional since it was a new subject and covered all sections as per syllabus. Second, I opted for Law, since I had done my graduation in Law, no extra effort was needed, but merely a different strategy to go about the preparation for civil services.

Did you follow the myth that only so called popular optional should be opted?

Ans: No, I felt comfortable with law as an optional though many tried to dissuade me. I felt the syllabus comfortable and interesting so I went about it. Also Public Administration was an interesting subject and had many parts of polity in it so I took it as another option.

What were the sources of information for general reading? How did you come to know that which sources of reading materials are standard?

Ans: My basic source of reading had been the public library. Apart from this, I also had internet as a source but was also cautious to cull out genuine and reliable information there from.

Tell us something about preparation of essay paper.

Ans: I did not prepare separately for essay paper. My GS preparation and my optional papers helped me answer the essay better.

How much time one should devote for this exam?

Ans: To give this exam a fair chance, it needs one and a half years of comprehensive preparation.

Prelims-1 year

Mains- depend upon the optional chosen. But it would take at least 6 months.

Interview- it would take few weeks to a month as it includes preparing of own profile and updating with current affairs.

Which is the most difficult part of this exam and why? What was your strategy to tackle this difficult part?

Ans: I feel, Prelims is the most difficult part, not just because it is tough but because it is highly competitive. I think being cautious in answering the prelims exam with taking few calculated risks would help one clear the exam. But overall this dedication towards the exam and consistent preparation would also help.

Did you integrate your Prelims or Mains preparation or was it separate?

Ans: I built my mains preparation by further building on my prelims preparation. But initially when I started, I had concentrated only on my prelims preparation.

How helpful are the notes? What is your advice on notes-making?

Ans: It had also been my strategy to make my personal notes for each topic that I considered important. It leaves your impression on the answer and further note-making proved important during my refresher, before the prelims exam. So it helped me in a big way towards saving a lot of time.

What are your suggestions for fresher’s ?

Ans: The exam is extremely competitive. So, fresher’s have to work towards that end. Being confident, dedicated and consistent will help crack the exam.

Civil Services Exam process is quite strenuous. It requires long hours of constant study. How did you maintain your tempo and what did you do to break the monotony of preparation?

Ans: I would prepare my notes and then study. It is one laborious exam that goes around for almost a year. I was consistent in my preparation and whenever I would feel burnt out I would take a short break and rejuvenate myself with things that interest me.

The trend suggests that Professionals are more successful in this exam. Does this exam prove difficult for Humanities and Social Science background candidates?

Ans: I don't think that it plays a part in the result. Being a professional cannot be a consideration when you have done your exam well. So it ultimately comes down to the individual preparation.

What should be the best strategy to tackle negative marking?

Ans: Negative marking requires a person to take calculated risks. It makes a person think objectively and not go about taking / relying completely on chances.

How did you prepare for interview?

Ans: My preparation for the interview was profile based and I also concentrated on my background subject Law and my other optional subject Public Administration. Also I was keeping myself prepared on the current hot topics of discussion.

Which type of questions were asked in the interview? Did you answer all?

Ans: The interview was very spontaneous. It depends on the way the candidate answers. I observed that most questions were built upon the answers that I had given.'' I had some questions on travel, law, current topics, RTI, Lokpal, why civil service and a couple of situational questions.

What is your advice to the candidates who have failed in this exam?

Ans: Please don't give up. You would have surely learnt from your unsuccessful attempt. Please correct it and you can surely clear this exam.

samveg ias dehradun

China would replace US as world's largest oil importer: report

China, world's second largest economy, will be the main contributor to the increase in global energy use over the coming decade, after that India will replace it as the world's biggest driving force for energy demand in the 2020s, International Energy Agency (IEA) said here yesterday. Reuters file photo for representation purpose only

Energy-hungry China would replace the US as the world's largest oil importer by the 2020s followed by India, according to a report that said emerging economies are poised to claim most of the global energy supplies.

China, world's second largest economy, will be the main contributor to the increase in global energy use over the coming decade, after that India will replace it as the world's biggest driving force for energy demand in the 2020s, International Energy Agency (IEA) said here yesterday.

China's crude oil imports for 2013 are estimated at 289 million metric tonnes, up 7.3 per cent year-on-year, according to the China National Petroleum Corp Economics and Technology Research Institute in Beijing.

Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the Paris-based IEA, said the global energy industry is developing to become a more efficient and low-carbon industry.

This is taking place as progress in technology along with high prices are helping to open up new resources, state-run China Daily quoted her as saying.

However, this does not mean the world is on the verge of an era of oil abundance, Van der Hoeven said.

The report said emerging economies would claim most of the global energy supplies over the coming decades.

IEA is an arm of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an inter-governmental economic think tank among elite economies.

The IEA and six emerging economies — China, India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia — have signed a joint declaration involving closer cooperation with regard to global energy challenges.

"As the global energy map is redrawn, the IEA's 28 member countries face many of the same energy challenges as key emerging economies, and we all share a common interest in building a secure, sustainable energy future," Van der Hoeven said.

samveg ias

Global summit on illegal wildlife trade

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, will host the highest level global summit to date on combating the illegal wildlife trade in London.

The summit next February, to which 50 heads of state have been invited, aims to tackle the $19 billion-a-year illegal trade in endangered animals, such as elephants and rhinos, by delivering an unprecedented political commitment along with an action plan and the mobilisation of resources. The Prince of Wales and his son, the Duke of Cambridge, who will both attend the summit, have previously highlighted the strong links between wildlife poaching, international criminal syndicates and terrorism and threats to national security. “We face one of the most serious threats to wildlife ever, and we must treat it as a battle — because it is precisely that,” said Prince Charles in May.

Elephant ivory and rhino horn are worth more than illegal diamonds or gold, and the proceeds have been used by rebel groups in African countries, such as al-Shabaab in Somalia and the Lords Resistance Army in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Heads of state from many African countries are expected to attend and the countries where the products are sold, including China and Vietnam, will be represented, though the level of representation is not yet finalised.

The summit will be chaired by Foreign Secretary William Hague and Environment Secretary Owen Paterson. In September, Mr. Hague called the illegal trade “absolutely shocking” and said it was an “issue that affects us all.” Mr. Paterson visited Kenya this month and saw elephants killed by poachers. He will visit China with Mr. Cameron next month.

The level of wildlife crime has soared in recent years, driven by demand form the rapidly expanding middle classes in Asia who value tiger, elephant and rhino products as status symbols. In South Africa 13 rhinos were killed in 2007, but the tally to date in 2013 is 860. 2012 was the worst year for ivory seizures, with the equivalent of the tusks of 30,000 elephants confiscated.

There have also been efforts to tackle the popularity of shark fin soup in Asia, which is one of the reasons that around 100 million sharks are killed annually. Wildaid, a group that uses donated advertising to change public attitudes, has run a campaign on state TV in China featuring movie star Jackie Chan and basketball legend Yao Ming, against shark fin soup.

Prince Charles and William also visited London Zoo on November 26 for a meeting with the conservation alliance United for Wildlife, whose seven member organisations include the zoo, WWF and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The royals discussed how new technology, such as drones, is being used to fight poaching.

mass ignorance

mass ignorance

One of the worst- kept secrets of the human resource development ministry is the fact that education in India is in a mess. Explosive expansion over the last two decades has failed to mask appalling standards of quality: in this, indeed, we are now at the very bottom of the global ladder.

In 2011, India first participated in world- wide tests of the reading and arithmetical ability of school children. In every test, in every grade tested, India competed desperately with Kyrgyzstan for the last two places. These tests confirmed the results obtained earlier by another organization: in schoollearning outcomes, in 2003, India was among the five worst countries in the world. In the eight years between the tests, we had only deteriorated.

The reactions of the government were entirely predictable. It did nothing about the facts revealed. Claiming that the tests were biased against us, it withdrew India from future world- wide testing. Unfortunately for the government, a very Indian NGO, Pratham, was also testing educational outcomes.

Its revelations were every bit as shocking. To cite just one, less than 20 per cent of Vadodara fourth graders could do sums required for average first- grade competency. We had flunked at the primary level. Our performance at the other end of the spectrum was reflected in the recent QS rankings of universities world- wide. No Indian university figured in the top 200. Some IITs appeared in the 200- 350 range, but the only other Indian institutions in the top 800 were the Universities of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Pune, which sneaked in near the bottom of the distribution. The rankings done by the Times Higher Education Supplement, the US News and World Report and the Shanghai- based Centre for World Class Universities were similar. Our ranks were abysmal — not because these rankings were dominated by the affluent West or Japan or the ' tiger economies'. Kazakhstan alone had 9 universities in the top 800. We were outranked by dozens of universities from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, South Africa and — yes — Pakistan. Nor did our predicament reflect the overwhelming pressure of numbers.

Jawaharlal Nehru University ranked among the top 50 universities of the world in faculty- student ratio ( the inverse of overcrowding), yet had little else to show for it. In academic accomplishment, as in sports, India, for all its 1.2 billion people, was a cipher.

But while in sports the reasons are in part genetic, there is no genetic explanation of our pathetic scholastic achievements. Children of Indian ( and Chinese) immigrants are the highest performers in American schools. And while immigrants naturally constitute a biased sample, a genetically handicapped group cannot possibly register such spectacular success. The problem lies not in us but in our educational system. Innumerable deficiencies of the latter have been highlighted — from mass teacher absenteeism to lack of infrastructure and of teaching and study materials.

Pratham's studies, however, suggest that, while absenteeism certainly affects outcomes, infrastructural expenditure does not. The crucial factor is the match between the student's absorptive capacity and the level at which he or she is taught. Pratham's tests conclusively establish that when weaker students are taught separately ( as in Pratham's Balsakhi programme), their scores improve dramatically.

Teaching needs to be tailored to the ability of the specific student. A heterogeneous class needs to be stratified according to ability levels with those at each level being taught separately.

This elementary educational principle has eluded the authors of the Right to Education Act and its judicial interpreters. If resource constraints preclude several teachers teaching at different levels in each class, the class must itself be homogenized. The only way of doing so is to deny promotion from lower classes to those who have not attained the minimum standard required.

Instead, the act mandates automatic promotion up to Class VIII. In consequence, laggards learn nothing at all: they fall further and further behind the general level with each successive promotion and reach Class VIII with an educational backlog of many wasted years. En route , they enact shockers like the Vadodara drama that Pratham recorded. Teachers who are sensitive to the plight of laggards have to reduce their teaching standards; the better students are then no longer intellectually stimulated so that their intellectual potential is undermined.

Our passion for political correctness, for the symbols, not the substance, of equal opportunity perpetuates mass ignorance under the garb of the right to education. We establish our egalitarian credentials by giving educationally backward children access to an educational process that, we have ensured (again in the name of equality), is completely opaque to them.

Precisely the same problem bedevils our universities. The gradual expansion of reservations has increased diversity in each class, not only in student backgrounds but also in their academic preparedness — with no provision however for parallel teaching at different levels.

The teacher therefore faces an invidious choice: he can teach at a level commensurate with proclaimed course content and confront the blank, uncomprehending stares of half the class or pitch his teaching several levels lower, inducing boredom in the other half and ensuring that they cannot compete with students of their own age educated in university systems less pseudo- egalitarian than ours. The politician's solution: dilute standards of evaluation and admission everywhere, turning universities into factories for mass production of degrees not worth the paper they are written on. Meanwhile, as education expands, semi- literate degree- holders become teachers, transmitting their ignorance to posterity.

Israel, with its inflow of Jewish immigrants from quite incredibly diversified backgrounds, not only the affluent US and western Europe, but regions like Yemen, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Mizoram, has heterogeneity problems as complex, though not as numerous, as ours. Unlike us, however, Israel has a solution. Students below minimum general standards are allowed an additional year for their degrees.

This is a preliminary year of compulsory intensive preparation to catch up with the general average. At year- end, they take next year's admission tests and join the general stream if they reach the minimum standards required — and 95 per cent of them do. Could we, for the sake of the future of our education, implement such a scheme? One doubts that the politicians in government and in education will permit it: it offers no electoral dividend.