In 2009 when the Government of India brought the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE) to force, the mood was celebratory. However the win-win situation soon started to sour as questions began to be raised about the pragmatic execution of the Act. After more than three years of the Act implementation, its progress is in a state of limbo. Will the RTE manage to achieve what many consider the improbable? Or will it remain a grand but implausible idea?

When the Government of India passed the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act-2009, education went on to become a Fundamental Right and not a privilege accessible to a handful. Post-RTE, private schools were ordered to reserve 25 per cent of their seats for students coming in from financially-weak sections. They had to be given compulsory admission. A process was put in place through which parents could submit documents proving their economic status and neighbourhood school/s had to accept them minus admission tests. The Act also stated that students could not be denied admissions under any circumstances, nor could authorities flunk them in examinations till they had crossed the elementary-level classes. The Act’s 25 per cent reservation demand created a stir—private schools began to talk about the Act’s ‘unfairness’, adding extra financial burdens on them. Even then, the Bill was passed and implemented. And five years were granted for its execution. While the government was busy celebrating its ‘victory’ over private schools, voices were being raised in several quarters regarding the feasibility of the Act. Somewhat similar to the partly successful, partly disastrous ‘No Child Left Behind Legislation’ of the US, the sustainability of the Act was being questioned. Some of the questions raised was surrounding the plausibility of the Act; with 80 per cent of the Indian population living in rural areas; how was the government planning to provide a culturally acceptable education which was also pan-Indian in character? Acceptability, after all, was one of the four pillars of the Act, including availability, accessibility and adaptability. Critics also felt that the available infrastructure was too weak to support quality education to all. There was also fear surrounding the question of reaction—how would children coming from completely different economic realities react to being clubbed together? Could this Act bridge the gap between classes or just widen them further? Is it fair to throw children from financially-weak backgrounds into fancy schools and ask them to cope? Was it fair to promote these children to the next class, even if they flunked previous ones? Most importantly, was the Right to Free and Compulsory Education-2009, a pragmatic idea? In the past few years cases have come up where children have been denied admission by schools and no visible action has been taken. Will it be fair to assume that this idea is powerful in thought, but like every other policy, fails miserably when it comes to execution? We asked experts about their opinions in the Issue of the Month.

SHYAMA CHONA// India has been an independent nation for over 60 years now. But the difference between our haves and have nots has not been bridged yet. Since the gap will not disappear by itself, it is the duty of our nation’s policy makers to create an environment where the discrepancies are addressed. Through the RTE Act, which reserves 25 per cent of seats in private schools for underprivileged students, the Centre is asking us to dream a little bigger. We should give the Act our consent because the idea behind it is to create a healthy learning environment. As every new pebble creates ripples in a pool, this idea, too, has managed to stir up a debate. But I believe that the positives of the Act outweigh our concerns. It is true that our country has are too many cultural and regional differences which will prove to be difficult to bridge by a single Act alone. Having said that, no one can deny a child her or his right to quality education. Because our country is a democratic one, it is but natural that there would be difference of opinions. However, one does not abandon an idea because of difference of opinions. Thus, the Act’s implementation should be carried out by individual institutions according to their systemic needs. What the Centre has ensured is a system of checks-and-balances; adopt it, when you do, according to your style, but adopt it nonetheless. What the Centre is planning to do is to offer young minds a chance to grasp a reality that is different. It is what children, as they grow into adults, will eventually be expected to do. As far as peer pressure is concerned, it is the school and parents’ responsibility to teach children tolerance. It is also a parents’ duty to teach children to not differentiate. I realise that change is difficult, but it always is. The bit that leaves me disheartened is the fact that such an Act had to be forced down our throats like a bitter pill. We, the teachers, are responsible for the holistic growth of students. We should be able to teach them to live with others which the Act expects us to do. I believe that the Act is a pragmatic one. Education is no longer a charity; it is not even an act of social welfare anymore. Privatised education is an industry where money is being parked. What are we doing with all that money? Why is the Centre not allotting more land to private schools? Why are private schools not offering scholarships to bring in more meritorious students—from every background—into its fold? And why are we not talking of the better-run government schools such as Kendriya Vidyalaya when we are seeking a change in the system? These are the questions that we need to ask ourselves while discussing the Act. As for the argument surrounding the ‘added financial burden’, I find it an unfounded worry. Instead of spending too much on infrastructure (swimming pools, polo tables or AC buses), spend on quality education (teachers). Instead of arguing about who is from where, teachers should see their students according to their merit, capacity and ambition. The rest is immaterial. What every child deserves in this country is a child-friendly school. For that to happen we need to make teachers’ training mandatory. We need to make sure that we let our egos go, before we start ‘teaching’ others about equality. Teaching is not a nine-to-five job; it is a calling. A life of a teacher does not have compartments—it is not enough to have knowledge alone, it is also imperative to respect human beings, albeit a human being who is younger. I recently travelled to a village in Kashmir where I met such lovely children, who are now going to school wearing uniforms and shoes like ‘privileged’ children. Their parents now believe that education is not an expenditure, it is an investment. I concur.

ARUNA SANKARANARAYANAN// The RTE Act is significant as it has brought the issue of education into the forefront of the public debate. For decades, our society has been indifferent to the question of quality education—especially the kind we offer to our children coming in from lowincome groups. The RTE has stirred-up the proverbial hornet’s nest and stoked the much-needed fire. But the Centre is yet to seriously address the question of quality in education, especially in its primary schools. RESEARCH SHOWS that a powerful predictor variable of student quality is dependent on the teaching quality. That in turn is based on the capability of teachers. The better the teacher the more qualified the student will be. The Indian reality is that here quality has been on a decline and even ‘reputed’ schools are fighting high attrition rates. Furthermore, it is not enough to just meet the ‘numbers’—if the right people are not in that group. People who are passionate about learning, have strong communication skills and are empathetic are the best teachers— do we have them? In India, teaching is still a profession which does not attract the crème de la crème of graduates. The Centre needs to address this issue first and make policy changes to turn teaching into a coveted profession. Teachers’ training programmes need to be revamped. They need to be selective when choosing the future mentors of our nation. Compensation has to be comparable with other coveted professions—say a management or an IT degree. Teachers should be encouraged to think out-of-the-box and make rote learning a thing of the past. Only then will the RTE seem a plausible design. While younger children, by and large, do not come with a baggage of prejudices and biases, in older classes, students would need to be counselled on how a person’s family background need not entirely determine a child’s future aspirations and ambition. Therefore dealing with the children (especially from the privileged background) is not that big a problem. Parents and teachers are the ones who may find it hard to dispel their preset notions. The spirit of the Act , indeed, has to be lauded, but it is also essential to note that the Centre is not resolving problems by asking private schools to reserve 25 per cent of their seats for the disadvantaged. Despite those available seats, 80 per cent (and above) of India’s students will continue to be schooled in government-run primary schools with weak infrastructure and erratic classes. We cannot ignore the reality that quality of education offered in government schools has to improve for the RTE Act be ‘fair in spirit’. On their part, private institutions will have to offer supplementary remedial programmes (tuitions) to the underprivileged children. We need to remember that academics is just a singular aspect of school life. Institutions should try to promote integration in sports and co-curricular activities alongside classroom interactions—sports in fact can serve as a great leveller and agent of peer acceptance than classroom interaction. When students from different backgrounds are thrown together, umpteen issues are likely to arise. Rather than shying away from these, schools should use them as opportunities to help children learn problem-solving and social skills. Boarding schools here can serve as great equalisers as day to day differences among children of different classes will not be so obvious in that environment. However, the boarding schools have to have sensitisation and counselling programs to make sure all children feel comfortable in an alien environment away from parents. We have to remember that creativity flourishes when there is diversity and a diverse classroom can propel intellectual growth. The change required thus will have to be more social than infrastructural within a classroom and more logistical on the Centre’s part. Honestly, the Act comes with a host of problems. Yet there is no denying that it wishes for the best. Intrinsically, there is nothing harmful in the idea of children from different backgrounds studying together. But good intent is not enough to make a scheme a success. What we need are more child-friendly schools which offer a stimulating environment for every child, ensure all children are physically and emotionally secure. Further more, support children with difficulties with additional help— both academically and emotionally.