Educational Reforms: Issues of Quality and Equity

‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009’, that has come into force after the relevant Bill was passed by Parliament, and the recommendations of the Bansal Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra for the regulation of fees charged by non-aided schools are two important measures for educational reforms discussed in this article.

Fee Fixation by Unaided Institutions

Recent measures to introduce educational reforms have put into sharp focus issues of quality versus equity.

Taking cognisance of commercialisation of education and profiteering by unaided schools, the Education Department of Maharashtra set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Smt Kumud Bansal, the former Education Secretary, to suggest norms for fixing fees. The Committee was set up as per the interim orders of the Bombay High Court in a writ petition in the case of Students Welfare Association versus Maharashtra Government.

The unaided schools constitute only 10 per cent of the schools in Maharashtra the remaining 90 per cent are either run by local bodies or are aided. In these latter categories of schools, no fees are charged.

The Committee has conceded at the very outset that the unaided schools, many of them affiliated to the National Board like the CBSE, have as their objective excellence in learning. They aim at holistic development of the students through curricular and co-curricular activities. The Committee took the view that the institutions should continue to have autonomy in matters like admission of students, recruitment of teachers and other staff, and determination of fees. However, in the name of autonomy, the schools should not indulge in profiteering for the purpose of personal gain or business enterprise. Some guidelines regarding norms for determination of fees have, therefore, to be laid down.

In prescribing these norms, the Committee was guided by the Supreme Court judgement governing the fees of unaided educational institutions, namely, T.M.A. Pai Foundation versus State of Karnataka (2002), Islamic Academy of Education versus State of India (2004) and P.A. Inamdar versus State of Maharashtra (2005).

The Committee recommended that the fees could be so fixed as to allow generation of reasonable surplus up to 15 per cent of total revenues. Surplus is defined as the difference between total revenue of the institution and total admissible expense. Total revenue include fees and other income, if any, while admissible expenses are defined as those contributing to the imparting of quality education to students.

The most important point that arises in this context is that while some parents complain about high fees charged by unaided schools, they nevertheless do not avail of free education offered by the government-run or aided schools but instead flock to unaided schools because of their perception that while the quality of government-run or aided schools is poor, it is high in unaided schools.

I had a recent experience of seeing how desperate the parents are in getting a seat for their child in an unaided school. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Pune Kendra runs two nurseries and two elementary schools and a secondary school. These schools have won a high reputation for quality education. Yet compared to other unaided schools, the fees are much lower. No wonder the ‘under-pricing’, according to the market conditions, invites retribution. For a small number of less than hundred seats, some 1000 parents stood in the queue to seek admission forms. Such was the desperation amongst the parents for getting this much coveted form for admission in the nursery school, that some parents came on the previous evening spending the whole night out sleeping in shivering cold all through the night. Since the forms to be issued had to be limited in view of the limited number of seats, hundreds of parents had to go disappointed. In their desperation they blamed the school for not issuing the forms and the local Shiv Sena unit even issued a threat. But if forms had been distributed to all, the same people would have blamed the school authorities for profiteering from the sale of forms (even here our charge for a form is less than what is charged by other schools). It is distressing that even parents who cannot afford to pay the fees of unaided schools shun the free education offered in government schools and flock to unaided schools.

It is high time the Education Department of government concentrates on improving the quality of their own schools rather than seeking to regulate unaided schools and harass them in the name of regulation. The government does not even disburse grants in a timely manner. The proposal to set up an Apex Committee at the State level to fix fees for each school is palpably impractical and would do more harm than good.

The idea that fixation of fees should have the approval of the Parent Teachers Association cannot also be stretched too far. The idea that each item of expenditure should be open to PTA scrutiny and that the management should explain and be answerable for each item in the balance-sheet of the profit-and-loss account is not workable. It would throttle the working of the institution and render it non-functional. All that can be done is to take parents into confidence through the PTA and give reasonable thought to the suggestions made by the PTA. After all, the PTA is not responsible for the running of the school. This is the work of the school authorities and management.

The Bansal Committee has frankly stated that excellence is the key objective of unaided schools (not all should be labelled as ‘private’ – schools of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan are run by a public institution of high standards with high ethical and moral values) and has provided an illustrative list of curricular and co-curricular activities and the relevant heads of expenses which contribute to excellence in education.

Universal Primary Education

After the attainment of independence, illiteracy was rightly considered as the first item of educational reform. No country with a high level of illiteracy as in India, especially amongst women, could hope to develop socially and economically. All countries in Europe, the USA and Japan could start the process of development only after universalisation of primary education. India had the largest reservoir of illiterate population in the world. This had to end. Even after two decades of the National Policy on Education (1986) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan the state has not been able to provide universal elementary education. Universilsatoin of secondary education is a distant dream.

The Constitution adopted on November 26, 1949, enshrined a Directive Principle in Article 45 which stated: “The state shall endevour to provide within a period of ten years from the commencement of the Constitution for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.” The constitutional directive was categorical and what was required was resolute implementation. But the state failed to live up to the expectation of the Constitution. The objective was not only not achieved in ten years but even after fifty years the objective is yet to be reached. As usual, we thought that more legislation would be a substitute for action! We argued that the goal was not reached because a Directive Principle is not justiciable and therefore remained a pious hope! The remedy was to make it a fundamental right! The NDA Government, therefore got the 86th Constitutional Amendment passed in December 2002 and thus gave every child between six to 14 years the right to free and compulsory education. It remained for the UPA Government to get enacted the “Right to Education Bill, 2009”. This ensures for every child the right to education and the obligation of the government to impart it. The Act also provided that the state shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for children until they complete the age of six years. The Act prescribed that it shall be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India, who is a parent or guardian, to provide opportunity for education to his child / ward between age of six and 14 years. If a parent/ guardian fails to perform the duty, the State Management Committee may direct him to perform compulsory community service by way of child care.

The Act envisages the concept of “neighbour-hood” schools where free and compulsory education will be provided. Such schools will be made available within a period of three years from the commencement of the Act. A child suffering
from severe disability and not able to attend a neighbourhood school will be provided appropriate alternative environment.

If for any reason a young person has been unable to complete elementary education by the age of 14 years but is continuing education in a school, he shall continue to be provided with free education in such a school till the person completes elementary education or until the attainment of 18 years.

Providing free and compulsory education will be the government’s responsibility, that is, of the Central and appropriate governments. The Central Government will provide (1) financial assistance to State Government schools on a sharing basis; (2) educational curriculum framework and standard of qualifications and training of teachers; (3) appropriate technical support to the State governments.

The appropriate government shall provide financial assistance to local authorities for implementation of the Act. It will establish additional schools, as required, after determining the requirement of schools for providing free and compulsory education and deploy teachers, as required. A School Development Council will prepare the School Development Plan for provision of free and compulsory education for every local area (that is, Block, District and Metropolitan region). The duties of teachers are prescribed in the Act. The vacancies in State schools or fully aided schools shall not exceed 10 per cent of the total strength. No teacher of a State or fully aided school shall be deployed for non-educational purpose except for decimal population census, election work and disaster relief.

A School Management Committee shall be constituted for every State school and aided school with representation of parents, teachers and representation of local community.

There will be a National Commission for Elementary Education for monitoring the implementation of the Act.

The idea mooted in the Act is that universalisation would be facilitated by making the curriculum less rigorous. There will be no screening procedure for admission to an elementary school. As it is the standards are very low. Research has shown the student even in the Fourth Standard cannot read and right and make sums. How much more can the quality be diluted and standard brought down in the name of equity?

The Act has tried to pass on the State responsibility to private (that is, non-government) schools by stipulating that 25 per cent seats in private schools would be allocated to children from disadvantaged groups including differently enabled children in every school. The State would provide needed resources to cover their fees. But State authorities seldom keep their word in fulfilling the obligation in a timely manner. Delay in release of funds would bring the private schools in financial difficulties. Moreover 25 per cent of such students might bring down the general standard of excellence of the school which has been acknowledged by the Bansal Committee and other reports.

The schools are prohibited from charging capitation fees. If these are charged, the management shall be liable to pay a fine which may extend 10 times the capitation fees.

There is a provision for establishing Recognition Authority in every State under which the school will be required to provide the needed infrastructure in three years. Here is a case of organisational proliferation which often does more harm than good. Cannot Zilla Parishads and Panchayats take care of this?

The affluent sections who have prospered in the era of liberalisation must be made to provide resources needed for universlisation of primary education through schools with the required infrastructure. A midday meal programme is also a way of pursuing children of poor families to attend to schools. The Constitutional Amendment and the enabling Act can hardly be called an improvement over the original Directive Principles of the Constitution. What was required was a resolve and commitment on the part of the executive that seems to be lacking. To be sure, a citizen can now go to court if a child is denied the right. But litigation and court pronouncement are no substitute for administrative action. The State of Maharashtra has no full time Minister in charge of Education. This is an indication of the priority accorded to education. For long we have been hearing that six per cent of the GDP share be made available for education. But this has not materialised and remains elusive. To fulfil its obligation the State has to open more schools and persuade the parents to send their children to school. But such is the condition of the poor families, specially of the disadvantaged sections, that they want their children to work rather than go to school. So here is a dilemma. Development cannot take place without universalisation of education; but universalisation is not possible without improvement of economic conditions.

Dr Dubhashi, IAS (retired), is a former Secretary to the Government of India and erstwhile Vice-Chancellor, Goa University; he is currently the Chairman, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Pune Kendra. He can be contacted at dubhashi@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in