Subject: Strong Objection and Request for Clarification on the Draft Curriculum for
Certificate Programme in Inclusive Practices
To:
The Member Secretary
Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)
New Delhi
Date:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing this letter to express my deep concern, professional objection, and sincere
request for immediate clarification regarding the recently issued draft curriculum for the
Certificate Programme in Inclusive Practices for Regular School Teachers by the
Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI).
While we appreciate the RCI’s role in advancing inclusive education across India,
the content, objective, and implications of this draft raise several fundamental questions that
cannot be ignored. As a trained and experienced special educator, I strongly feel that this
draft must be reconsidered in light of its long-term consequences on both professionals and
children with disabilities.
1. Unjustified Short Consultation Period
The draft has been placed in the public domain for just 10 days for feedback. This is an
extremely short period for such a critical and system-wide policy proposal. How can
thousands of educators, experts, and institutions review, discuss, and respond meaningfully
in such a limited time? This undermines the very spirit of participatory policy-making and
calls for an immediate extension of the feedback timeline with wide stakeholder
consultations.
2. Will RCI Provide CRR Registration to Certificate Holders?
This is our most urgent and fundamental question:
Will teachers who complete this certificate course be granted CRR numbers?
If yes, it is a direct violation of the professional standards set by RCI itself, which mandates
that only those who complete at least a two-year full-time disability-specific course (D.Ed.
or B.Ed. Special Education) are eligible for CRR registration.
Granting CRR registration to those with just a short-term certificate completely devalues the
efforts and integrity of special educators who have studied and trained rigorously for two
years in professional environments, with structured practical training, assessments, and
supervised internships.
3. Can a Regular Inclusive Teacher Fulfill the Role of a Special Educator?
The job of a special educator is not limited to classroom teaching. It includes:
Designing and implementing Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
Conducting functional and behavioral assessments
Working with therapists and clinical experts
Managing children with intellectual, developmental, sensory, and behavioral
disabilities
Providing targeted remediation, therapy support, and progress monitoring
A short-term training or certificate programme cannot prepare any teacher for such complex
and sensitive responsibilities. It is unfair to children, and unethical towards the profession.
4. Disability-Focused Education Needs Experts, Not Generalists
The proposed curriculum risks oversimplifying disability education by assuming that
inclusive classroom teachers can deliver it with only a basic understanding. This not only
compromises the quality of learning for children with disabilities but also sends a message
that special education is not a professional field—which is completely unacceptable.
Inclusion does not mean merging students into one classroom without proper support. It
means providing equal opportunities with the right expertise, which only trained special
educators can ensure.
5. Damage to Career Prospects of Existing Special Educators
Thousands of trained professionals with D.Ed. and B.Ed. Special Education degrees have
committed years to their training and professional growth. If regular teachers with just a
certificate are expected to do the same job, what will happen to these trained special
educators?
Will schools still hire them?
Will their salaries be justified?
What message will go to future students who want to pursue special education
professionally?
This proposal disrespects our profession and threatens our future.
6. RCI Cannot Appoint Teachers as Special Educators Without Proper Training
According to RCI’s own regulations, a CRR number can only be issued to professionals
who meet minimum eligibility, which includes a full two-year recognized course in special
education. This certificate course does not meet that criterion.
If the aim is to raise awareness, RCI may train in-service teachers—but such teachers
should not be given CRR numbers or roles equivalent to a special educator. Doing so will
violate the purpose of the CRR and the spirit of the RPWD Act 2016.
7. Violation of the NEP 2020’s Vision
The National Education Policy 2020 does support inclusion but it also emphasizes the need
for capacity building and proper training of teachers. Inclusion should not come at the cost
of quality. If the teacher is not fully prepared, the child with disability suffers.
Our Suggestions to RCI
We respectfully recommend the following:
Immediately extend the feedback period to 30 days or more.
Clearly state that this certificate course will not make anyone eligible for CRR
registration.
Offer this course only as an awareness or sensitization programme, not a substitute
for formal special education.
Launch more recruitment drives and posts exclusively for CRR-registered special
educators in all inclusive schools.
Respect and promote the role of professional special educators in all policy-making.
Conclusion
The move to certify inclusive teachers through a short-term course and possibly recognize
them as special educators is deeply concerning. It undermines years of work done by RCI,
special educators, institutions, and disability rights organizations. It will harm children with
disabilities by depriving them of the specialized support they rightfully deserve.
We, as concerned professionals and educators, urge RCI to withdraw or revise this draft
immediately and uphold the standards of special education in India.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to a detailed response.
Warm regards,
Name:
Designation/Institution:
CRR Number:
Phone number:
Email:
