How to promote a common school system - a different take

The TN High court judgment reported in the following link
http://tinyurl.com/39ldqyz
is welcome by most education activists. However, can a revolution be brought about by judiciary is my rhetorical question. While the present RTE act which is just symbolic and is not likely to bring about any major changes needs to be replaced with an act which is more unequivocal and assures the commitment of the required resources, the struggle to achieve that goal is unlikely to be successful without the parents support. How can we ensure that?

 http://tinyurl.com/39ldqyz

There is no doubt that an equitable society requires, as part of the foundation, a neighborhood-based common school system which ensures all children are provided free, accessible and quality education. However, can we stop any child or the parents going beyond such an education and providing their children additional educational or training inputs if the children are capable of absorbing those extra inputs without feeling the ‘burden’? Obviously we can not. In fact, a significant number of children of those parents, who can afford the extra expenses and whose children seem not to be troubled by the extra efforts, are already providing such inputs whether it be in arts, sports or curricular related fields such as learning a foreign language or computer skills beyond what is provided in the school curriculum. That situation will always prevail. The point I wish to make is that a certain kind of private education can not be banned. What we should encourage and in fact pressurize the state is to make such opportunities available at affordable costs to whichever child needs it. Obviously the school curriculum itself will have to be revamped to accept what is considered as the basic minimum in the traditional curriculum comprising language, mathematics and sciences and incorporate electives in other fields currently considered as ‘extra-curricular’ or ‘add-on’ courses such that the typical student is not overburdened.

If the logic of the infeasibility of banning private education is thus accepted, the goal of common school system can be achieved only by the parents desiring it rather than by restricting the private enterprise in education. It is in this context, I feel that the moves to insist on some disadvantaged children being admitted to private schools and protesting against the fee hike by unaided schools are in fact counter productive from the long term objective of public funded common school system being the most dominant system available and desired by the parents. Let me explain how.

The ‘disadvantaged’ children accepted by the private schools probably  would have been categorized so under false pretenses and all that we would have created would be another rent-seeking opportunity for the ‘certifiers’ who enable such admissions. Even if the truly disadvantaged is admitted to such schools on account of the compulsions of the RTE, the schools will ensure that the child gets alienated very soon and seeks a change voluntarily giving grist to the mill of the so called incompetence of the ‘disadvantaged’ children. The seats opened thus would gradually be filled by the affluent children.  Even if the scenario is that the disadvantaged children do very well in the private schools, what will that achieve? The parents may be reaffirmed in the ‘efficiency’ of the private schools and if the ‘citadel theory’ does not work these parents may encourage other parents to seek admission to private schools. That, in the long run may enable the government to increase the percentage of disadvantaged students to be admitted to the private schools. The private schools would even persuade the government to pay the full cost of such students, thus letting the PPP model work very much to their favour.  Are such scenarios outlandish? I think not. That means the public school system will further deteriorate for lack of patronage.

On the other hand, letting the unaided schools and even the aided schools ‘a free hand within the regulatory framework of academics alone,  the parents who feel exploited through increased fees and other measures, may wean away from such schools. But it is important that simultaneously the quality of infrastructure and the education in the public schools must be raised to the perceived level of ‘efficiency’ in the private schools. One important requirement is to see that the government schools teach English in such a way that by the time the child is in 8^th standard, the communicative English is as good as those studying in private English medium schools. Then only we will gradually wean the parents away from private schools to public schools. I am sure that with English being taught as a language as early as 3^rd standard now, the goal is not unachievable if English teaching is revamped for communicative ability.

In any case, given that more than 80% of the school going children (and of course, those who ought to be in school but are not) are to be benefited by public school system, we should concentrate all our efforts to  make that system attractive to children and their parents on the lines already discussed in the earlier paragraphs. Such a strategy will force the private schools to gradually lose their sheen and eventually they would have to survive either by accepting to run on no-profit basis or close down.  It is a long struggle but other forms of struggles in which the opinion-making stake holders are going to be in the opposition is unlikely to succeed.