Misrepresentation of terms like ‘disadvantaged groups' and ‘weaker sections' and the absence of proper instructions from the Union Government has allowed State Governments to often undermine the Right to Education Act
India is close to universal enrolment for the age group six to 14 years age group, with 96.7 per cent of children enrolled in schools during 2014, according to the 10th Annual Status of Education Report, facilitated by Pratham. Strikingly, the proportion of students enrolled in private schools has increased. Aser 2014 reveals that enrolment in private schools (age group six to 14) has gone up to 31 per cent from 19 per cent in 2008. Compared to 2013, there has been an increase in the private school enrolments in a number of States.
The Indian Parliament in 2009, passed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, as a landmark legislation. Section 12 (1)(c) of the Act, mandates reservation of a minimum of 25 per cent of the entry level class seats for children belonging to economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in all private unaided schools; excluding minority institutions. The Act also included a provision that the cost of education of these children is to be reimbursed by the Government to the extent of per child expenditure incurred by the State or the actual school fees, whichever is less.
Given that there is a growing trend of privatisation in a number of States and the lack of quality confronting the education in Government schools, it requires concerted efforts from the Government, private schools and civil society organisations to actually translate the intent of this provision into practice.
A clear and well-defined set of guidelines is crucial to the success of a legislation like this. Misrepresentation of terms like, ‘disadvantaged groups’ and ‘weaker sections’ etc can seriously undermine the goal this legislation was set to achieve. lack of well-structured guidelines from the Union Government has led the State Governments to modify the stipulations and frame their own set of implementation processes.
For instance, Delhi defines EWS as the families from economically weaker section having household income less than one lakh rupees per annum. The disadvantaged groups include SC, ST, and non-creamy layer of OBC, orphans and physically and mentally challenged children.
The range of this income limit varies from 27,000 in Gujarat to 3.5 lakh in Karnataka. There are again some inter-State variations in the way these States have defined the neighbourhood and age criteria under this section. For instance, Rajasthan follows a ward criteria while in Maharashtra, neighbourhood is defined in terms of aerial distance.
This measure was aimed to provide equal access to education for children from socio-economically backward sections and was primarily formulated to foster inclusion of marginalised children. While it has the potential to improve both equity and efficiency in school education in India, the implementation so far has been highly haphazard across the States. Four years down the line, the Right to Education Act has made education neither free nor compulsory in most parts of the country.
In light of the RTE Act, the model rules framed by the Union Government, was that, children admitted under Section 12 (1)(c) shall not be segregated from other children in the classroom, nor shall their classes be held at places and timings different from the classes held for other children. It further provides that these children shall not be discriminated from the rest of the children in any manner pertaining to entitlements and facilities such as textbooks, uniforms, library and Information and Communications Technology facilities, extracurricular activities and sports.
But the opaque and unclear process of implementation of this provision has received representations from various stakeholders as the private schools have brazenly violated the above mentioned principles in some of the States. Since there is ambiguity as to what amount has to be reimbursed to these schools, there are several heads other than ‘tuition fees’ for which the parents are being charged. In case they deny to pay this fee, the school conveniently keeps such children admitted under this quota out of any activity that takes place outside the four walls of a classroom. There have been sporadic instances of blatant discrimination and denial of admission in some of the elite private schools.
The problem lies with the view several schools take towards EWS admissions. Since the 25 per cent number amounts to a critical lot, what remains a thorn in the flesh, is the lack of clarity in the reimbursement to be made to private schools, which has further hampered compliance in many States.
In response to requests for Right to Information, filed against the reimbursement procedure, some States like Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, and Karnataka seem to have comprehensively detailed the procedure of reimbursement while several others like Goa, Himachal Pradesh, and Punjab have no clarity on the per child reimbursement amounts even after three years of implementation. Moreover, this provision has opened the private schools for greater governmental interference and the inertia among these schools in declaring their fees publically has also led to delays in the entire process.
Further, building institutional mechanisms that not only monitor that the scheme reaches the targeted beneficiaries and the academic progress of these kids but also conduct social audits will potentially help curtail discrimination through appropriate grievance redressal mechanisms.
Given the salience of such a provision and its potential to put millions of children in private schooling, deeper scrutiny is required on the nuances and the manner in which it is being implemented. The mode of execution of these provisions is essential not only to ensure proper implementation but also to aid future policy making.