A good idea killed by bad politics

UPA Government wants to interfere in the functioning of even those private schools that are not dependent on public funds. Here is a fact-check

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on a controversial provision in the Right to Education Act, 2009 has left parents, students, teachers and school owners across the country confused about how exactly it will effect them. If school owners are worried about how to admit these students, parents want to know if they will now have to pay higher school fees while teachers are unsure if they will have to put in extra hours for the new students. This section attempts to answer all those questions and more:

What is the RTE?

It is the Right to Education Act, 2009, which makes access to education a Fundamental Right for every Indian child between the age of six and 14 years under Article 21(A) of the Constitution. The Act describes the modalities for free and compulsory education to every child in this age group.

What is the current brouhaha over the recent Supreme Court judgement all about?

The Supreme Court judgement essentially upholds an important clause in the RTE that makes it compulsory for even private schools that do not receive Government funding to reserve 25 per cent of their seats (in nursery) for children belonging to ‘economically backward’ families. Private unaided schools had earlier argued that such a clause was unconstitutional, but that argument has been dismissed by the apex court.

Does this clause apply to all schools in India?

Yes, for the most part, the ruling applies to all schools irrespective of which board they are affiliated to, which State they are located in and whether they are Government or private-funded. However, the Supreme Court ruling exempts minority institutions. Also, for schools that have both day scholars and boarders, the 25 per cent reservation shall apply only to day scholars.

When does the reservation ruling come into effect?

Technically, the 25 per cent reservation clause has been in effect since the Act came into being in 2010. Government schools, for instance, are already supposed to implement the clause. However, most private schools had chosen to challenge it. Furthermore, once the clause was disputed in the Supreme Court, school authorities argued that it would be irresponsible to admit poor children, as required by law, and then turn them away if the Court ruled the other way. Now, the ruling will have effect from the upcoming academic session of 2012-2013.

Who have been defined as ‘economically backward’ children?

Children who belong to households that earn less than one lakh rupees per year annually are deemed to be economically backward. However, it remains unclear what exactly constitutes a ‘household’.

Who is paying for the education of these children?

The Government has promised to pay for these children. The money will come from the State Government but will only be to the extent of the State’s own per child allocation for education. In Delhi, for instance, that comes to a little more than `1100 per child per month. If the school charges fees higher than that, as is most often the case, then the institution will have to bear the financial deficit.

What adverse impact can the  ruling have?

Since the deficit will only grow each year with more number of free students in every school, a decade from now every class in every school will have 25 per cent non-paying students. Either the other fee-paying parents will have to pay up the deficit or schools will simply have to shut down.

Will the Right to Education Act lead to Government interference in the management of private schools?

This is highly possible. If the Government is paying, even partly, for the education of some students, it could still want access to the school’s financial records.

Will these children study alongside other fee-paying children or will they be taught separately?

All students will study together in the same class. In this way, the Government claims to do away with social inequality and bring about greater inclusiveness.

Why can’t the Government teach these children in its own schools at similarly subsidised rates?

The Government knows that its own schools are a mess. There is barely any infrastructure, teachers rarely come to class, drop out rates are alarming — the list goes on. Naturally, even many poor parents don’t want their children to go to these schools. Conveniently, then the Government has now brought private schools that provide quality education, under the ambit of the RTE; hoping that they would be able to do better where it has failed so miserable.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on April 17, 2012.)