The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE) enacted by the Union Parliament came into effect from 1st April 2010. The crux of the legislation is that it makes mandatory for the state to provide free and compulsory education to all children between the six and fourteen years of age at a neighbourhood school. Amongst other things, the legislation sets benchmarks for the quality of education to be imparted in terms of school infrastructure, learning equipments and number and quality of teachers. If this law is to be implemented in its letter and spirit, it would require a massive deployment of resources – financial resources for meeting the objective of setting up large number of neighbourhood schools i.e. schools within 1-3 km from the homes of children and manpower resources in terms of number of teachers to man those schools – for in both these respects the gap between what exists and what is desired is huge. That is if we forget the next level challenges of quality and commitment of manpower. The law gives the state three years time to set up such neighbourhood schools, of which a year and a half has already lapsed.
So much as far as the broad contours of the legislation is concerned. But then the devil is always in the details. The legislation has been passed by the Union Parliament but as is the case with all legislations, the law per se defines only the broad parameters. These broad parameters have to be then supported by rules which define the various finer details which are left by the legislature to be drafted by the executive i.e. the Cabinet and the bureaucrats. In the case of the RTE, the Union Parliament has only passed the main law but left it to the individual state governments to frame rules to support the legislation. As things stand today, one and half years after the law was enacted only about 20 states have framed the rules which in effect means that the remaining states have not even taken baby steps towards implementing the legislation. And considering the huge deployment of resources and setting up of processes and infrastructure at various levels which even an attempt at implementing this legislation requires, this state of inertia is remarkably poor. What is more worrying is that it is the bigger states such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat and West Bengal which have not yet framed rules to the RTE Act.
The provision in RTE Act which has been most in the news and which is also being held up as the reason behind some states going slow on framing rules is the one relating to all private schools having to reserve 25% of its seats for children from economically weaker sections of society (EWS) in the neighbourhood. As per the RTE Act, the state would reimburse such schools by paying them at the rate of average expenditure incurred on the education of a child by the state which might be less than the fees that the private school would have otherwise charged from any other student, even if the element of capitation fees charged at the time of admission is ignored. The devil, as always, will lie in the detail – at what rate the private schools will be reimbursed will be notified separately by the respective state governments. But in any case the scope for profiteering by the private schools, whether in the garb of capitation fees or annual fee hikes, will be definitely reduced to that extent. The private schools have come together in several cities, including New Delhi and Bangalore and have challenged this particular provision in the RTE Act. The matter, as of now, is pending for adjudication before a constitution bench of the Supreme Court.
This particular provision in the RTE Act, to my mind, is a brave piece of legislation. Its genesis might have been rooted in the problem of not having sufficient number of government schools to be able to impart the promised education to all children but it has nevertheless potential for far reaching consequences. It will not only open windows of access to a quality of education better than that imparted in most government schools for children belonging to EWS, but will also bring a certain diversity to the teaching and learning environment in schools. Many parents from the well-to-do class of society are apprehensive about the fact that their children will share space with children from an entirely different background and with habits and priorities very different from those that they would like their children to have. But then the state must think differently from an individual for its perspective and priorities are different from those of individuals. This particular provision in the RTE Act has immense potential to promote a more inclusive and accommodating society in the long run. It helps no one’s cause to bury your head deep into the ground like an ostrich and not see what is around and real, which is what the gated communities, heavily overpriced multiplexes and exclusive shopping malls are forcing us to believe. More true for children who were born into this lifestyle of exclusivity (or isolation, as you may see it) than for somebody who has seen both sides of the fence. Studying with or being friends with somebody belonging to a family with needs, goals, habits entirely different from yours can be a learning experience for both – an experience which has a better chance to crystallise into a maturity that comes from being aware of differences and of reality, whether good, bad or ugly. It shall make the younger generation, especially the privileged lot, more aware of the context in which we live – we are still a poor country with millions of people living in unacceptable conditions of poverty – and how this context is different, very different from the make believe world that the exclusive schools, apartments, malls and multiplexes would want us to imagine.
Of course all of this is largely an urban phenomenon but then given how the cities have always been pivotal hinges around which widespread social changes have taken root and spread into the countryside around it, it makes sense to make a mountain out of the molehill that the provision relating to reservation for EWS children might appear at first thought. And yes, there is no denying that this experiment is likely to open up several new points of conflict – between the state and the private schools, the parents and the state, the parents and the schools and between children belonging to altogether different sections of society – but then dealing with an issue is always a better bet in the long run than denying it altogether. After all peace, as somebody told me and I remembered, comes not from absence of conflict but from dealing with conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment