Making Education A Fundamental Right

The Lok Sabha passed the Right to Education Bill on 4 August 2009, making education a fundamental right of every child between 6 and 14 years of age. Is it a milestone in social inclusion or a futile legislation? Experts differ

An Inclusive Approach

That we require a right to education legislation 62 years after Independence to universalise elementary education sounds unbelievable. Half the children in elementary education, in the age group 6 to 14, do not complete eight years of schooling — a convincing reason to demand a law. The fact that most of those who drop out belong to disadvantaged groups such as dalits, adivasis, minorities and girls highlights the need for education to become inclusive. With the exclusion of access, equity and quality at the school level, and about 300 million adult non-literates, the educational status of India is termed as worse than that of sub-Saharan Africa by experts. The right to education legislation must be seen as a last resort to overcome such deprivation.

The constitutionally mandated duty of the state was to universalise education of children up to age 14 by 1960; a target that has been ignored for nearly 50 years since then. The present legislation defines the most stringent compulsion on the state to finally accomplish this task. It squarely compels the state, rather than the parents, to ensure that all children complete eight years of school education. Importantly, any fee or expense that prevents a child from complete elementary education will have to be borne by the state. It requires that admission to school should not await the production of birth and transfer certificates. It requires that education should be free of fear, anxiety and trauma to the child, and specifically bans mental harassment and physical punishment of children. These are discriminations responsible for large-scale dropouts from the disadvantaged sections of society.

Hopefully, this legislation will ensure that all children, particularly from the disadvantaged groups, are enrolled and retained for eight years of study in schools.

Bibek Debroy: Professor at the Centre for Policy Research and International Management Institute

Bibek Debroy: Professor at the Centre for Policy Research and International Management Institute

More Wrong Than Right

That India’s education system is in a mess is established. We can’t tap the demographic dividend without fixing education and health. School education used to be a demand-side problem, but no longer. Enrolment rates have improved, including for girls, and out-of-school children are now primarily those of migrant workers. This leaves supply. Poor households now send their wards to private schools, because quality is better. Barring Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas and Sainik schools, we have a quality problem with government schools. So, we should ease entry requirements for private schools and de-link government subsidisation from provisioning.

Unfortunately, instead of addressing the reasons we think legislation is the answer to every problem. If that were the case, there would be no poverty. But right to education isn’t something any MP is going to oppose. It is a separate matter that only 54 MPs were present when the Bill was passed — only 25 of them from the government side. Through this law, the government has recognised it can’t lick its school system and passed the buck for converting a right to schooling into a right to education to the private sector. It will compensate private schools for that extra 25 per cent, but there are no budget provisions. We have no idea who will be responsible for the implementation, the Centre or states.

The human resource development ministry’s vaunted 100-day plan has now been reduced to this legislation alone. Had it been a genuine plan, we would have done something about easing entry requirements. We would have asked why schools charge capitation fee, instead of banning it by legislation. Ditto for private tuitions by teachers. And what purpose does scrapping of exams serve? This new law will only convey the impression of something having been done, without changing anything. Why were those 54 MPs wasting their time?

(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 07-09-2009)