The Right to Education’s limitations

The Right to Education Act, like any other law, has some inherent limitations imposed by the thought behind it.

Its benefits are further limited by the ability of the state or the citizen to enforce it.  For one, the constitutional amendment to make free and compulsory education a fundamental right does not go beyond the age of 14 (eight years of education). This is the first limitation of the law.

The upper limit of 14 years was probably appropriate in 1950 but not now. Similarly, the lawmakers did not include pre-school or early childhood education in the right. As a result the current act will ignore these age groups unless individual states want to make separate laws extending the limits.

In Maharashtra, where all girls and several social groups are assured free education up to Std XII, why should the state government not extend the age limit?

States such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Himachal, Nagaland, and Karnataka have, by and large, saturated the supply of schools and teachers although there is a district to district, city to city unevenness and some last mile issues that will have to be corrected.

Most states, thanks to work done over the last five years, have opened schools within one km of almost 98% of rural habitations and teacher recruitments are one.

So, setting a goal to extend the right to education up to at least 16 years of age by 2015 is possible in large parts of India.

Simultaneously, recognising the critical importance of early childhood education to the development of a child’s faculties, the government will do well to extend the lower limit of the law at least to age three. 

There are two factors that are helpful in this. First, under orders from the Supreme Court, the government is obliged to universalise the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) — the anganwadi network — to each habitation.

This has largely happened, although not satisfactorily on the quality and efficiency parameters, in most parts of India. ICDS is expected to deliver education along with other services but this aspect was never stressed.

So, a structure exists, which can be leveraged. Secondly, it is observed that half of the five-year-olds in the country are already enrolled in Std I although the new act only talks about ages six and higher.

So, getting the other 50% of five-year-olds to attend a pre-school in the school premises is just a short hop.

Another limitation in the law is continuation of the traditional stress on inputs without adequate attention to outcomes.

If a child goes to school for three, five, or eight years, what should his/her learning achievement be? If some basic minimum learning is not achieved, should it not be considered a violation of the child’s right to education? 

In my opinion, it is not only possible but also necessary to conduct standardised tests after classes 2, 5, and 8.

These can be text-book independent, stress-free, on-demand examinations conducted by independent agencies. Unless such independent assessment is conducted, the quality of learning in government schools will decline.

It is because of the poor quality of learning in government schools that parents with even limited means choose to put their children in low-cost private schools, which may not be all that good either.

The new law is designed to make these low-capital, low-cost schools impossible to survive because for them to be recognised they will need to have a good building and a playground, while also paying prescribed salaries to trained teachers.

In a city such as Hyderabad, close to 4,000 such schools will face closure.

The numbers are likely to be almost as high in every big city of Uttar Pradesh and some other states.

Will the government find the space and funds to replace these schools?  How will the population react to these closures given their perception of government schools? Will the government actually have the moral, political, and financial strength to close them down in three years?

The much discussed 25% reservation in unaided schools will have interesting consequences, assuming that such reservation is implemented systematically and properly.

On the one hand low-cost schools become non-viable, and the cost of private schooling will skyrocket as salary and capital investment needs shoot up.

On the other hand, if the government schools fail to deliver the quality that can meet the aspirations of the growing middle income population, the law will not be enough.

A social conviction that children of the rich and the poor should study together will be needed if the law has to be effective. There is no leadership today that can actually provide this conviction.

In conclusion, the government will have to take drastic and urgent steps to ensure improved quality of education in government schools that focus on measurable outcomes. A beginning has been made, but  a long and difficult road lies ahead for the Indian child.