In
the morning newspaper, I came across this article
by my old friend and colleague, Rukmini Banerji of Pratham. Rukmini makes the very strong case that having
addressed the issue of providing access to most children, we need to focus on ensuring
that children receive quality education; merely enrolling children in school is
obviously only half the job done. More importantly,
all
children must receive quality education as part of the Right to Education Act, and
not just the ones who go to government schools.
Of
the 1.3 million schools in India, only about 300,000 are in the private sector;
the rest are run by government. Yet according
to some estimates,
these 300,000 schools account for fully 40 percent of all enrolments; the schools
themselves range from unrecognised budget schools to very high-end premium
schools. Clearly, the non-government
sector accounts for a very significant chunk of the total child population.
Rukmini’s
argument is a simple one – in a country where such large numbers of children
attend schools managed by agencies other than government, can we afford to
focus only on the needs of only those who attend government schools? This is why the Annual Status of Education
Report (ASER) brought out by Pratham
makes it a point to survey children at home and not in the classroom, so that
as many children as possible can be covered, whether enrolled in any school or
not, whether attending or not. On the
other hand, the NCERT’s Assessment Survey (NAS)
includes only children enrolled in and attending government and aided schools. Naturally, the results of both surveys are
vastly different.
But
the point of this piece is not to get into the debate about survey results or
methodology. Rukmini’s article set me
thinking about the way education, particularly at school level, is viewed by
the political establishment. I decided
therefore, to take a closer look at the manifestos of the major political parties
to understand their respective positions.
Not surprisingly,
I found a singular lack of vision or understanding across the board. Almost all the manifestos repeat tired old clichés
about generally strengthening the education system, revamping the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) scheme, universalising
secondary education or improving skills development, without providing any
details. And only the Grand Old Party talks
about a possible role for the private sector, committing itself to “exploring
possible partnerships with the private sector in the delivery of education”. Perhaps because they remember that the 12th
Five Year Plan categorically states that “...private providers (including NGOs
and nonprofits) can play an important role in elementary education. Their legitimate role in expanding elementary education
needs to be recognised and a flexible approach needs to be adopted to encourage
them to invest in the sector”.
The other major
party, which released its manifesto yesterday, promises to increase budgetary
allocations to 6 percent of GDP (a long standing demand of activists), but
makes no mention of the private sector at all.
And for the rest, the fact that nearly half the children in this country
attend a school under private (including NGO) management is clearly not good
enough reason to improve the environment in which they function. Indeed, two of them – the Party-Not-On-The-The-Right,
and it’s competitor, the newest entrant into electoral politics – actually talk
about increasing supervision and
control over private schools, as if things weren’t bad enough already!
In
many ways, this is a reflection of the way in which education has been viewed
within the establishment all these years.
In a reaction to the opening up of the economy post-1992 and the acceptance
of international aid for funding the District Primary Education Programme (and
similar projects in the States), the education establishment moved to the far
left, arguing that it was the sole responsibility of government not only to
regulate and supervise, but also to deliver education services to its citizens. This position has hardened further in recent
years, even as growth of the economy resulted in the creation of a middle class
with increased aspirations for their children that caused them to move away
from poorly performing government schools to private ones that were more
accountable. Even the judiciary has
succumbed to the persuasion of this argument, holding in innumerable judgments
that private schools have little or no entitlements at all. The result has been increasingly stringent regulation
and the imposition of unreasonable standards and rules, all leading to
increased rent collection at various levels, but little actual improvement on
the ground.
The
trouble is that the so-called private sector in education is mostly
disorganised and disunited, as is normal when agencies are in competition with
each other and not colluding. In such
circumstances, they lack a strong enough voice that would enable their concerns
to be heard. But does this mean that parents
who choose to send their children to these schools – and indeed, the children
themselves, all 120 million of them – also have no rights and can be ignored?
The
school education landscape today has been divided into two distinct camps – the
‘us’ and ‘them’ of the government and non-government sectors, which allows government
policies or national bodies like NCERT to target only children enrolled in the
former. In turn, this is mirrored in the
manner in which policy is decided, with decisions affecting private schools taken
with almost no contribution from them.
As
we look forward to the formation of a new government at the Centre, this is an
opportune moment to consider the manner in which we would like to heal the
school sector, and get both the government and private agencies to work
together. The country urgently needs a
vision for education that enables rather than restricts, treats the private
sector as an equal partner, and leads to the fulfilment of every child’s right to quality education. Indeed, this would be a good time for the new
government to articulate a national education policy, given that the last one was
published in 1986 (and amended in 1992).
The
manner in which the new government addresses the problems of school education,
and in particular, the privately managed parts of the sector, will also be an
instance of resolving that classic dilemma of modern democracy – how do you conduct majority
rule while protecting the rights of the minority. In education, as in other sectors, the
question before the new government will be one of safeguarding those rights, while
“avoiding the tyranny of the majority[1]”. Sadly, I do not see that vision in any of the
manifestos I’ve read so far.
Disclaimer – It is not my intention to express a preference or
otherwise for any of the parties contesting the elections; this blog post does
not endorse any candidate or party for the ongoing General Elections.
