Certainly a very thought-provoking finding; hope researchers and interested readers would find time to read this 8 page article till the end,PDF is pasted below. http://www.epw.in/special-articles/quotas-under-right-education.html Quotas_under_the_Right_to_Education.pdf SPECIAL ARTICLE
Quotas under the Right to Education Not Leading towards an Egalitarian Education System Ankur Sarin, Swati Gupta Quotas for the weaker sections in private schools have been one of the most controversial provisions introduced by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The quotas have imposed a debate on issues of social integration and equity in education that private actors had by and large escaped so far. However, the idea of an egalitarian education system with equality of opportunity as its primary goal appears to be outside the well-meaning space that private school principals inhabit. Therefore, the imposition of the quotas has led to resistance, sometimes justified. But the essential arguments against it are based on the logic of markets that the leadership in private schools has imbibed. This leads them to not only resist the idea of integration, but also devalue the enormous effort put in by children and parents from the weaker sections. Ankur Sarin ([email protected]) and Swati Gupta (swatig. [email protected]) are research scholars at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. A A ny modern society today "relies on its schools to level the playing field for children born into different circumstances. More than any other institution, schools are charged with making equality of opportunity a reality" (Duncan and Murnane 2011: 7). Assuming this to be true of India as well, these are interesting times to interrogate our education system on its ability to challenge inequalities of existing privilege in society. Access to schooling for those coming of school age (as measured by enrolment at some point in time) is close to universal (Planning Commission 2011). However, access to quality exhibits a sharp gradient with socio-economic status (Desai et al 2008). Moreover, purchasing power increasingly plays the equilibrating role between the mismatch of aspiration for quality education and its availability. Majumdar and Mooij (2012: 13) aptly describe the unfolding phenomena as "segregation (taking) place along with massifi cation". At a time when market actors respond to opportunities that this disequilibrium provides, the state has prima facie taken the progressive step of enacting the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) (for details and its association with other government programmes and policies, see Sarkar 2012). One of the most contentious provisions of the Act has been Section 12(1)(c), which mandates that unaided private schools set aside at least 25% of their seats in the fi rst standard to students from the weaker sections and disadvantaged groups (henceforth WS). Challenged legally, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the mandate in April 2012, exempting only unaided minority schools and boarding/residential schools. Recent studies (Noronha and Srivastava 2013; Sarangapani et al 2014) point to the resistance as well indifference of private schools and the government machinery to implementing the mandate. Highlighting the expenses that parents still need to incur, the studies challenge the notion that the mandate allows a "free" education. Further, both studies emphasise the exclusion the very poorest face. In contrast to these, the Centre for Civil Society (2011) reports few hurdles besides awareness of parents, and expresses a surprising optimism on the issue of inclusion. While it may be too early to reach any judgments on the effect that these quotas have had, we find that they have opened up a dialogue that the "elite" had so far been able to avoid. The purpose of the dialogue may well be to share strategies to subvert the objectives of the RTE. However, its value has to be u nderstood in the context of an environment and discourse Economic & Political Weekly EPW september 20, 2014 vol xlIX no 38 SPECIAL ARTICLE that have not even confronted the elite and the resourceful in recent times. We hope to contribute to and extend this dialogue by a critical discursive analysis of the debate around the mandate for inclusion in private schools. In particular, we juxtapose two important voices that will determine and be most affected by the success or failure of these quotas. These are the voices of the "benefi ciaries" - children and their parents targeted by the quotas - and the voices of those instrumental in delivering the "benefits" - the principals of private schools. By most accounts, private schools have resisted integration in myriad ways, with the most egregious responses often the most highlighted (for example, Khan 2012). However, other accounts take a more empathetic view, highlighting the challenges that private school principals face. They must become product minting machines churning out high achievers, great sportspersons and multifaceted supermen. The principals of such schools are often under tremendous pressure, tossed between the management and parents. No wonder, then they feel that their autonomy is seriously threatened by the Right to Education charter! How will they ensure quality if their student intake is 'diluted' by the have-nots? (Bedadur 2011: 61). Undoubtedly statements such as these raise questions about the manner in which goals and quality are defined, and to whom the principals should be accountable. However, a more empathetic view also perhaps helps us move closer to an understanding and resolution of the challenges faced in the implementation of the RTE mandate, by helping unpack the "palpable hostility of privileged schools to their (the poor) inclusion" (Velaskar 2010: 84). Without disputing Velaskar's argument that "only a recovery of welfare state and society committed to a democratic egalitarianism would be able to transform structures towards attaining higher levels of justice and equality in education and society" (2010: 84), we seek to engage with the question of where such a state and society shall emerge from. And what hope can we have from the leadership in private schools on whom an "affirmative burden" (Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan 2012) has been placed? We do not seek to critically evaluate the Act or the mandate itself - a task that has been performed by others on different dimensions (Jain and Dholakia 2010 on finances; Desai and Thorat 2012 on existing inequalities, Bhatacharjee et al 2014 on the functioning of the RTE grievance redressal mechanism in Karnataka; Srivastava and Noronha 2014 on the contested policy process behind the RTE and the Section 12(1)(c) mandate). However, instead of waiting to write its post-mortem on the basis of ex ante design flaws, we acknowledge the role of "street-level" (Lipsky 2010) actors - in our case, school leaders - in determining policy outcomes. We also seek a more constructive engagement with its objectives by acknowledging that the Act with all its perversities is a living reality. Therefore, we share Majumdar and Mooij's (2012: 16) belief that when thinking about the possibilities to improve the system in order to achieve universal quality education, one has to start from the situation as it is, and to see the main actors involved as part of the solution, rather than as part of the problem. To this end, we contribute by bringing the views of the "main actors" into the public debate that the mandate hopefully generates. Although the RTE mandate of reserved seats in unaided private schools became applicable in practice only from 2011, private (recognised) schools in Delhi have had to implement EWS (economically weaker sections) quotas - called "freeship quota" - in varying percentages (between 15% and 25%) since 2004, in exchange for obtaining land from the state at concessional rates.1 Therefore, because of their longer experience with a policy like Section 12(1)(c), interviews with parents and children who have availed themselves of "freeship" seats in Delhi provided us with the orientation to conduct the study from the point of view of the supposed benefi ciaries. Notwithstanding some exceptions, we find that the market logic, with money as a metric of value, is well entrenched in private schools, and this is expressed by its leaders. By its nature, the logic of markets is exclusionary on the basis of willingness (or, more likely, ability) to pay. Whatever other instrumentalities it may serve, it is contradictory to hope that a system that is created to discriminate on the basis of economic resources will lead to educational outcomes that are independent of a child's economic origins. Our study does not generate evidence otherwise. Previous analyses of inequalities in the educational system, such as Velaskar (2010), leave questions about the agency of individuals, who inhabit and enact the larger logic that they are a part of, unanswered. What are the micro foundations that lead to and sustain the larger logic? If we are allowed to make the (seemingly reasonable) assumption that individuals have the ability to make choices and they do, it is important to examine the values, beliefs, and constraints that underlie these choices. Without doing so, as researchers, we can have no hope of influencing the choices made by those charged with implementing the policy. Principals as Leaders of Change The role of leadership as a critical ingredient - "second only to classroom instruction among school related factors that affect student learning in school" - in school culture and student outcomes has recently received greater attention among research scholars and policymakers (Wallace Foundation 2012). Two large-scale studies, one from the US (Louis et al 2010) and the other from the UK (Day et al 2009), provide rich empirical evidence to document the role principals play in determining the efficacy of schools. Similarly Resh and Dar (1992), who have chronicled Israel's experience with integration, highlight the role of principals whose "ideas and convictions about the effi cacy of integration affect the actual practices of class organisation in the school. This, in turn, has an effect on learning processes within the class and eventually on student's academic outcomes, especially on those from the weaker group" (see also Resh and Dar 2011). In contrast to the international emphasis, literature on the importance and consequences of school leadership in the I ndian context is as sparse as the attention it has received in sept embe r 20, 2014 vol xlI X no 38 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE table with 2 columns and 52 rows policies and programmes - a neglect that is often pointed to Therefore, the survey statistics quoted in the paper refl ect the (for example, Azim Premji Foundation 2011). Notable excep attitudes and perceptions of the leadership of 35 schools. tions exist, like Sister Cyril of Loreto Convent, Kolkata (Juneja The surveys were followed up with brief open-ended con 2005). Majumdar and Mooij (2012: 83) "come across a number versations on the topic of inclusion of the WS with participants of inspiring cases of school improvement - cases of transition who were willing to be interviewed. Finally detailed in-depth from a resource-poor, dysfunctional school to a well-endowed, interviews, similar to those carried out in Delhi, were con functional centre for learning, often led by a dynamic head ducted with the principals of four schools who had substantial teacher." Yet, school leadership remains outside their other experience in trying to integrate students from the WS in wise detailed and in-depth examination of school processes. their schools. Therefore, as precursors of outcomes likely to follow, we in- Brief descriptive statistics from our survey are provided in terrogate the belief systems of a small group of private school Table 1. While the study sample cannot be considered statisti principals. In doing so, we try to identify where the challenges cally representative, it does span a reasonable spectrum of to implementation of the quotas and the achievement of a more Table 1: Desc riptive Statistic s from Sur vey of Selec ted Sc hool Leader s egalitarian education system lie. We purposively pick schools that would be considered aspirational by the privileged or affluent. We do so because these schools are the basis for the Background % Female 47 Years of experience as school leader <5 years 36 superior image of private schools and their desirability. There >5-10 years 33 fore, their responses signifi cantly determine the extent to which > 10 years of experience 31 quotas serve to create a more egalitarian schooling system. Fees in the 10th Standard < 10,000 17 Methodology 10,000 - 30,000 40 The paper is part of a larger study that uses mixed methods. In this, we primarily focus on how the actors of interest to us - principals, parents, and their children - see and understand > 30,000 43 Implemented WS mandate 19 Opinion about WS Mandate Percentage of > respondents strongly agreeing/agreeing to the following the quotas. The study sought to not only document views, but statements: Wrong in principle to impose quotas on private schools 59 also interpret and attach meaning to them. Therefore, the re- Government should pay for these children 82 search strategy of phenomenology - "concerned with under- Adds diversit y to classroom learning 54 standing social and psychological phenomena from the perspectives of people involved" (Welman and Kruger 2001: 189) Fee-paying children also have a great deal to learn from the WS children 66 Number of schools 36 - was adopted for the study. schools and school leaderships. Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha, We conducted interviews and group discussions with par and Punjab had 47% of the schools in the sample. Besides this, ents and children residing in slums in East Delhi, who have there were two schools each from West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, been admitted to private schools under WS quotas for at least Tamil Nadu, and Delhi, and one each from Rajasthan, Uttar five years. In-depth interviews were conducted with seven Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, and Uttarakhand. children (four girls and three boys) as well as their parents. Although we refer to summary statistics from a survey con- We then interviewed the principals of two private schools ducted as part of the study, the primary sources of informa where the children were studying, and of two elite schools in tion, from which we draw meaning, are the interviews that Delhi, one that had apprehensions about the mandate and were used to generate narrative material for a richer and another that was supportive of the idea. Hearing principals deeper understanding. Each of the open-ended interviews was describe their versions of the same experience - inclusion of transcribed and, if necessary, translated.2 Thematic analysis children from the WS - revealed both different perspectives was used to identify themes that would help understand and and tensions in the perspectives. It also helped us understand make meaning of the underlying arguments emerging from the issues affecting and concerning principals the most. The the conversations. perspectives articulated by the principals on the rationale of the policy, its formulation and implementation, the challenges Voices of the 'Beneficiaries' they faced, and the alternatives they found often shone a light The parents of all the children we interviewed were employed on the values and beliefs beneath their opinions. in the informal sector and were daily wagers (except one). Bar- Following the interviews in Delhi, data were collected from ring one child whose parents had completed higher secondary, a survey of school leaders (principals, administrators, and no parent had studied beyond the fifth grade. Admissions to managers) of 45 schools from all over the country. This was schools under the quotas had not been easy. Many had to over done at the beginning of a training workshop on leadership and come obstacles ranging from being physically denied entry to management skill development that they had chosen to at schools and being discouraged from applying, to negotiating tend. We had no part in the workshop other than being allowed the government bureaucracy for certificates and then being to conduct this study. Although all participants were invited, lucky in a draw. The threat of the state bureaucracy hangs over we only received 37 complete responses. Of these, two had to parents even after admission. Although the rules prohibit it, be dropped since the WS quotas did not apply to these schools. the parents of one of the children we interviewed had received Economic & Political Weekly september 20, 2014 vol xlIX no 38 67 table end EPW SPECIAL ARTICLE a notice from the school asking them to submit an income certificate in a week or else face cancellation of the child's admission under the "freeship" quota. Notwithstanding the explicitness of the Act, as several other accounts have highlighted (Deepika 2013; Noronha and Srivastava 2013), the idea that their children are getting this education "free" is a highly contested one. A parent argued, "Only the (tuition) fee is exempted. We have to bear all other expenses, which is a lot. Our child is definitely not getting this education for free, in case the government thinks it is". The "exclusions" this led to were acknowledged by parents themselves. Only those who are (slightly) above the poverty line and have a below the poverty line (BPL) card can afford to send their child under the freeship quota. Even schools see the parents' occupation before distributing forms because the overhead expenditures are high. The reference here is not just to charges for extracurricular activities, but also to expenses estimated to be at least around Rs 5,000 annually on essentials such as books and uniforms. That these have to be bought from exclusive vendors at a premium price adds to the conviction that the education is not "free".3 Further, with schooling getting increasingly project- and a ssignment-based, even academic work implies more out-ofpocket expenditure. For example, internet-based homework that requires children to refer to the internet and frequently get printouts is a big source of expenditure. Accessing the internet in cyber cafes costs Rs 20 for half an hour, and printing adds up to Rs 2 to Rs 5 a page. Besides this, most parents spend on transportation to school, and Rs 200 to Rs 400 per month on tuitions. Sought to be outlawed by the RTE and discouraged by principals, the tuition expenditure was considered necessary by parents. In many cases, the tuition teacher was not only rendering academic help, but also helping parents negotiate the formal school system by helping them read and understand notes in diaries and other notices sent by the school. However, given the difficulties in finding capable help in slums, tuitions often led to additional transportation costs. Somewhat counter-intuitively, a parental remark explained the complementary nature of the two, "Since the child is going to a good school, the tuition also has to be an expensive one." Estimates of annual school-related expenditure range from Rs 12,000 to Rs 15,000, and we were told that this was despite not being able to participate in most extracurricular activities - such non-participation being a point of great dissatisfaction with the children. The "optional" extracurricular activities included classes for sports and arts, field trips, and activities such as annual days that required spending on supplies, costumes, travel, and so on. Although children acknowledged that these activities were not mandatory, they also pointed out that since all the other children enrolled, they could be considered non-compulsory. While the children participated in some, it was clear that there were many activities in which they could not. Describing the conflict created, an elder sister spoke of her younger sibling's reaction, "She cries a lot if we say no (to expenditure on extracurricular activities). She feels embarrassed that all will get to participate, but her." The children's experiences are surely not uniform, and vary across and within schools. From our conversations, it appeared that children performing better academically were also the ones who were treated better - with the direction of causality not clear. The experience of feeling different because of their social backgrounds seemed to affect young children less, or they were unable to articulate it. Besides narrating incidents of being teased by classmates, the two oldest children in our group (in the ninth standard) spoke of having to stand in class and be publicly identified each time lists of "freeship" students had to be made or cheques distributed. However, even the younger children observed that if a child was dressed clumsily, the teachers often passed remarks like, "Are you from a slum?", and if anyone misbehaved, "You must belong to Mandawali" (an unauthorised colony that was later regularised). The parents of the WS children are clearly unequal participants in their child's education. They wished that notices and notes in school diaries were in Hindi and felt hesitant at parentteacher meetings since they did not understand English. One parent had been explicitly warned at the time of admission to not fight and bring complaints to the principal and teachers. Some of the children themselves felt shy about taking their parents to meetings, and one parent complained that her child had stopped informing her of parent-teacher meetings in time. Despite complaints and challenges, we heard more voices acknowledging the opportunity that quotas presented. We repeatedly heard examples of children in "freeship" quotas knowing more and behaving better. Two of the children we spoke to were toppers in their classes. For many, including the youngest, there was a strong desire to prove a point. While getting the admission, the school authorities tried to scare me, saying that I won't be able to cope, and, therefore, don't take admission. But I proved them wrong. Now all the teachers love me. But when asked about the future, one mother responded, Despite these quotas, none of them can become engineers or doctors. Parents cannot afford the expensive coaching that is required. Quotas alone don't assure anything. Voices of 'Leadership' "Since, it is forced upon us, we have to do it, but our heart is not completely in it" might be one of the more favourable views on the policy we heard from the principals. One of the key sources of discontent was the manner in which the quotas had been implemented, with "no proper planning", "forced upon us, almost overnight, without any consultation or notifi cation, and leaving us struggling for proper information." Discontent on being reduced to passive participants was often accompanied by expressions of distrust and lack of confi dence in the state's intentions and the motives behind the policy. Some felt used by politicians "for their vote bank politics". The view that the "government is coming up with experimental policies without understanding reality and the damage it can cause children" was one we heard often, even among those supportive of the quotas. They saw it as an attempt by an incompetent state to pass on its responsibility to private schools by exercising its authority over them. september 20, 2014 vol xlIX no 38 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE Referring to lack of faith in the government's ability in the arena of education, one of the principals asked, "Why is the government implementing the WS quota when government schools are empty despite their teachers being paid the highest salaries?" Another saw quotas as the "government's attempt to dilute the standard of private schools as they have failed to improve the standard of their own schools." Corruption, which is typically associated with any government programme, also serves to discredit the ability of the state to implement policies to achieve its goals. Explaining the opportunities created, one said, "If you have all the papers, we have to include you in the draw (for selection under the quota). How difficult is it in India to get fraudulent papers made? Pay a little bribe and you have to pay no fees for your child." The discontent is exacerbated by a perception that the mandate is not being implemented uniformly, and that the recourse to bribes always exists. Lack of faith in the institutional structure leads to cynicism or confidence that it is business as usual, "It is as each individual considers right. Some are admitting 10% and some 25%. It's a cycle (of corruption). There is no hope for India. Let it be the way it is." Question of Resources: Who Will Pay for These Children? The Act mandates the government to reimburse private schools an amount equal to either the expenditure incurred per child by the state or the actual amount charged by the school, whichever is less. However, as one principal said, this is clearly not enough. Who will pay for these 25% children? Ultimately the parents of the feepaying children, and as the number of these 25% children keeps increasing, there will be so much pressure on the parents of the paying children that it will be impossible to sustain 25% non-fee-paying children. The costs that schools actually incur in educating children are usually opaque and estimates at the per child level are subject to many unverifiable assumptions. They get further complicated by the fees schools charge for extracurricular activities (for example, educational/recreational trips), which are considered "optional". In 14 of the 36 schools, parents usually had to spend more than Rs 5,000 per year for "other" activities, besides the regular fees. In two schools, this cost was greater than Rs 30,000. Explaining its "constraints", the principal of an elite private school said, "We hire an event management company to organise students' trips and picnics. Why will they not charge WS children?" Another principal said, "Parents are already paying for the education of these non-paying children, but I can't ask them to fund their picnics and pleasure trips as well." Acknowledging the implications, he added, "Of course, these children feel left out. Despite studying in the same class, these children will still be outcasts." The issue of resources is further compounded by the reluctance of many schools to engage with the government. Of the 16 schools that had already implemented the RTE, only three had received partial reimbursement from the government. With most schools preferring not to implement it, the reasons cited included dealing with additional paperwork Economic & Political Weekly EPW septe mber 20, 2014 vol xlI X no 38 and fear of coming under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Perceptions of Low Academic Competency and Motivation Although exceptions were often mentioned, during interviews, the principals often referred to the WS children as "slow learners" - 37% (13 of 35) said that the WS children were very often or always weak in studies, and 43% (15 of 35) believed that they lacked interest in studies. Since almost all schools used English as the medium of instruction, competence in language was another significant area of concern, with 77% (27 of 35) believing that the WS children had diffi culty in learning English, always or very often. The school leaders were consistent in echoing oft-repeated beliefs such as that marginalised groups have lower intrinsic abilities and motivation for education (Balagopalan and Subrahmanian 2003; Ramachandran and Naorem 2013). These perceptions often served as explanations for the increased "burden" on teachers - "teachers are very troubled because the WS children are slow learners as well as the most mischievous in the class." Some of the principals (11%) stated that teachers feeling overburdened because of quotas was not a problem they had anticipated. This increased "burden" was also often attributed to lack of proper support at home. Twenty-seven of the 35 principals (77%) said that the WS children lacked parental involvement, and a similar number believed that their family atmosphere was very often or always not conducive to studies. Some principals said, "How will the child cope (with the academic requirements)? We cannot take care of this child when he is at home." Academic concerns were often juxtaposed with the effect quota students had on "good" children. One principal said, "At present, our good children are suffering because the WS children are slow. As a result, the teacher has to slow down the pace, which means she is unable to finish the syllabus on time." This was a feeling echoed in our survey, where 61% of principals felt that slowing down because of inclusion was a "major" problem. Unbridgeable Social Distances Social integration is the biggest challenge that these children face. They just cannot adjust. What they wear, how they speak, what they get for lunch, where they go for vacation, which car comes to drop them, all this makes an impact on a child's psychology. We don't understand how significant these things are for children. We can keep the child here only for six hours, the remaining 18 hours the child is back at home (slum environment). Despite studying in the same class, this child will still be an outcast. We should not make the child go through this emotional trauma. The social distance that separates children belonging to the WS from their privileged counterparts is unbridgeable, according to principals like the one quoted above. While some attributed this largely to the social backgrounds of the children being integrated, others, more reflectively, said, "Neither can they connect with us, nor can we." Some spoke about the problems it created for the class as a whole, asking, "What if other children SPECIAL ARTICLE don't want to sit with them? It brings disharmony to the class." Others, like the principal quoted above, represented it as protecting the interests of the children being integrated. Fifteen of the 35 principals (43%) said that the WS children very often or always had problems relating to their classmates, and a similar proportion felt discipline-related issues were a "major" problem from inclusion of the WS children. Eleven of the 35 principals (31%) felt that the EWS children used abusive language very often or always. While some principals blamed the behaviour on integration itself, others ended by rationalising it along the lines of "It is their habit. This is what they learn from their environment." Most principals in schools that had quotas for the WS children claimed that nobody explicitly identified these children, but the other children were able to "figure out". Others r eferred to practices in their schools that accentuated the differences, without necessarily seeing them as problematic. For example, the principal quoted above on social integration, explained, It is compulsory that children having birthdays invite everyone from his/her class for his/her birthday party so that everyone gets invited. But the difference is so apparent at such events that this affects the child drastically. She added, These children don't even have a computer at home. We have decided to save paper and send all circulars and notes by email to parents. How will the parents of these children read emails? Another principal was willing to attribute the problems more to "usual" children, but given her inability to do anything about it, felt that children from the WS would be better off by not being integrated into private schools. Even my own children don't want to come to my school because they feel that our school children are ver y snobbish. Yes, they are. W hat do I do? Their parents prefer them that way. I can only do small things, like I told them not to bring tetra pak juices to school, which all can't afford. But otherwise you can't do much. Consistent with the idea of lack of autonomy (Bedadur 2011), the principals explained that it is not necessarily about what they want, but what parents (of fee-paying children) allow or want. Of them, 40% felt that resistance from parents of feepaying children was a "major" problem in the offing. "The parents of fee-paying children will retaliate. We will have to work on that front as well." Devaluing 'Quality' Education As in the case of any affirmative action, a large number of principals felt that the WS quota was devaluing school admissions (referred to as "lowering of quality" by them) by giving away seats to the "undeserving" and "ungrateful". The devaluation that they speak of has two dimensions. The first is the effect that integration has on the image of the school, and the second is the diminishing value attached to the perceived privilege of being a part of the school. A typical characterisation of the issue of the adverse effect on the school's image was, First, these (WS) children can't adjust with our good (fee-paying) children. They use foul language, look dirty, and as a result, the school's reputation gets spoilt. Parents (fee-paying) say that slum children come to this school. The school environment is spoiled. The school's reputation is at stake. Several principals strongly believed that the parents of the WS children did not value the "opportunity", and they saw a place in their school as a right and not a privilege. The same principals who complained of the background of the WS children complained that parents come and pick fights with them, instead of feeling obligated to them. For example, The parents of WS children are hardheaded. They come to us as if it is their right to get admission in our school. As if the school is obliged to serve them and impress them. We are doing so much for them and even then they are hardly thankful. But we still don't want to harm the child. Along similar lines, a principal complained, "Those who used to come pleading to us earlier now demand a place in our school as a right. This finishes the value of a place in our school." The idea that parents who did not pay fees did not value education was brought up in different ways. In a school that starts from the second year of kindergarten, the principal complained about the lack of preparedness among students from the WS. The suggestion of some parents that their children be made to repeat a year to make up for this was taken as a sign of their callous attitude to education, and that they did not have to bear the costs of attending school. Despite being contradictory to the goals of the RTE Act, almost all the principals we interviewed proposed a separate afternoon/ parallel shift for only disadvantaged children as an alternative and better solution, "A separate school where teachers belonging to their background will be appointed, and then they will fl ourish." Most principals also argued that 25% is a very high number and it must be lowered, "the lower the better". Some principals argued that the government should allow them to integrate students from the WS in accordance with their own norms and regulations. Discussion Principals in private schools in India face an extremely challenging environment. The rapidity and scale of socio-economic changes sweeping the country have been well documented. Undoubtedly, these changes have significant implications not only for purchasing power, but also for insecurities, aspirations, and markers of social status. In a historically hierarchical society, with a fundamentally inegalitarian educational system, education becomes a marker of social status, and schools an important venue of contestation. It seems that quotas under the RTE have brought to the fore, if not exacerbated, many of these issues. There is a lot more diversity in the voices of the "elite" than much of the popular media and scholarly work acknowledges. And any attempt to summarise ignores this diversity. However, there are important undercurrents that emerge, which characterise the Indian schooling system and have implications for the potential impact of quotas and other instruments. Embedded in Markets It would be easy to dismiss the oppositional views of the principals as the "hostility" of the elite, but this hostility needs to be examined further. Any attempt to characterise the source se p t e m be r 20, 201 4 vol x lI X n o 38 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE of normative beliefs in principals does disservice to the diversity of the views and explanations we heard. However, our reading of the information we collected suggests that the roots lie in deeply imbibed values of the market and the role of principals as market players. Albeit in varying degrees, principals are quite aware and conscious of the "market value" of their schools, and see people with differential abilities to pay differently. Evidence of this is seen in the objectives and constituencies they privilege normatively, the explanations they offer to justify their positions, and the means they use to value costs and benefi ts. Many principals see benefits that may accrue to those in the WS quota coming at the expense of those from their "natural" constituency - the fee-paying parents. They are quite sensitive and even protective about the concerns of this section. Therefore, they oppose the quotas because it is perceived to be unfair to fee-paying children. The preferential position of the fee-paying constituency may well stem from its socio-economic background, which it often shares with principals. But it is justifi ed on the ground that the fee-paying constituency values school offerings more (as seen in their willingness to pay for them). The differential status accorded to students by their ability to pay is most clearly evident in discussions on "extracurricular" activities, and how the privileges of the advantaged are evaluated vis-à-vis the hurt it might cause the disadvantaged. While private schools constantly emphasise the need of these activities for overall development of their children, principals, at the same time, seem to believe that these "pleasure trips" are optional for the WS children. The hurt that the WS children may feel from being excluded is recognised, but the activity or practices that lead to the exclusion are evaluated primarily by the extent to which they meet the needs and demands of fee-paying parents. Therefore, the use of communication via e-mail, trips to multiplexes, and lavish birthday parties are non-negotiable practices, despite that the divides they create are evident and known. The location of the problem, that principals (paternalistically) believe may damage the WS child, is thus transferred from the activity that creates the divide to the divide itself. Further, their role as gatekeepers to prized positions perhaps blinds principals to the sacrifices and efforts made by the parents of the WS children. The aspiration for quality schooling among the weaker sections has been well documented, and our conversations with children and parents in Delhi only added to the evidence. It is clear that many parents see these schools as bridges to overcome divides, and the WS quotas as an instrument to use for this. They are willing to make sacrifices and additional investments so that their children can avail themselves of the opportunities that these quotas provide. They do so with fairly limited ability to negotiate a system that they have little or no experience with, limited resources, and no safety nets. However, the risks and investments that these parents make are ignored. Instead, assertions of their "right" are perceived as devaluing schools. Evidence of resistance to the idea of a rights-based approach and embeddedness in the logic of markets is also seen in the alternatives offered to quotas. Private schools would like to do Economic & Political Weekly EPW september 20, 2014 vol xlIX no 38 it on their own terms, as charity, or as some describe, "corporate social responsibility". Implications and Conclusion No matter how faulty, existing structures cannot be simply wished away. They have to be understood. By interrogating them on several dimensions, quotas provide a window to understanding the values and beliefs of significant actors in the Indian education structure. To ignore the agency that actors such as school principals have would not only condemn the quotas to immediate failure, but also absolve them of all responsibility. The lack of faith in institutions to protect them in case of motivated allegations and the fear of a trial by media makes the leadership feel insecure in trying to work with a vulnerable population that it admittedly has little experience of working with. Therefore, there is reason to be empathetic to their positions. However, the dominant discourse that seems to be developing around the issue of integration among private school principals is one that not only emphasises differences between children of different economic backgrounds, but also normative privileges, keeping children from different economic backgrounds separate. The discourse supports practices that differentiate students based on economic background, or take it as beyond its control. Accompanying this prioritisation of economic resources is a fundamental dislike for a "rights"-based approach, especially one that tries to include private schools. This may be the natural consequence of leading a private organisation, but arguably it should not be so for institutions committed to a public purpose by law. Where this leads a society that is increasingly dependent on private schooling should be of concern to those aspiring for a just and stable society. The complexities are exacerbated by a state that is engaged in significant social engineering, with little capacity to do so (Pritchett 2009). For example, the government's perceived failure to include private schools, or keep them informed, and the lack of a "proper plan of action" becomes justifiable reasons to resist the policy. Coupled with increasing evidence of its failure to provide quality schooling, any legitimacy that the state has to direct education in Indian society is fast eroding. If education has the task of promoting "a common widely shared perspective of social values and society at large and a sense of equity" (Tilak 2012), it is unclear where the initiative will come from. Our study suggests it is unrealistic to hope that private actors will perform this task on their own accord. Our study also raises questions for proponents of other institutional arrangements for schooling. For example, an unstated but implicit assumption underlying arguments in favour of a "voucher" system (Shah 2009) is that schools (and the people who run them) are indifferent to the source of fi nancial resources a child uses and therefore the child's experience in school is independent of whether the funds for her education are from the public exchequer or her household. This would be a questionable assumption in any hierarchical, class-based s ociety. But it is a particularly questionable one where educational outcomes continue to have a very rigid relationship with SPECIAL ARTICLE social origins (for example, on caste and religion, see Desai change. Therefore, by questioning the rationality of systems et al 2010). With some principals even referring to fee-paying they inhabit, quotas potentially open up a space for educators children and the households they come from as "acche log" to act on values and commitments that they otherwise would (good people), there are underlying clashes in values and not have been able to. Further, quotas potentially create an visions of education that need to be resolved if schooling expe-instrument around which to organise democratic action, as riences have to become truly independent of socio-economic civil society organisations such as Social Jurist, the RTE Task backgrounds. Force, Institute of Social Studies Trust, and the IIM-A RTE While we have empathy for several arguments made by the Resource Centre, among others have done. As Apple (2011: 27) principals, the one that we have least empathy for is the pater-points out, nalistic view that children from weaker sections should be Struggles over schooling - over what should be taught, over the relakept separate for their own good, to protect them from being tionship between schools and local communities, over the very ends emotionally scarred. It would be naive to believe that children and means of the institution itself - have provided a crucible for the formation of larger social movements toward equality. do not encounter and learn to live with worse differences on a daily basis. To argue that disadvantaged children be kept in The danger, of course, is that grossly inadequate policy responses separate schools means protecting privileges that have so far such as the quotas, which at best cater for the needs of a few, remained unchallenged. can also serve to create divisions and diffuse any mobilisation Although limited, we do find some evidence that some edu-around the much larger necessity of high-quality public education cators perhaps see quotas as an opportunity to bring in social that serves the needs of a democratic society. Notes 1 This was the outcome of a public interest litigation, Social Jurist vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors (CW No 3156 of 2002), in Delhi High Court - on implementation of quotas in January 2004; Supreme Court judgment for fee cap (Modern School vs Union of India and Ors), 27 April 2004 (Juneja 2005). 2 The translation was done independently by the two authors and subsequently reconciled. 3 We were told that although there is a provision to be reimbursed Rs 500-Rs 600 every year for books, they obtain it only if schools send lists of EWS students. With little in it for them, more often than not schools avoid the additional p aperwork. References Apple, M W (2011): "Democratic Education in Neoliberal and Neoconservative Times", International Studies in Sociolog y of Education, 21 (1), pp 21-31. Azim Premji Foundation (2011): Special Issue: School Leadership (Newsletter No X V I). Balagopalan, S and R Subrahmanian (2003): "Dalit and Adivasi Children in Schools", IDS Bulletin, 34 (1), pp 43-54. Bedadur, N (2011): "Autonomy and Accountability of the School Head: How Much Is Too Much?" Learning Curve, X VI, pp 59-62. Bhatacharjee, Malini, Mysoor Dolashree and A Sivaramakrishnan (2014): "RTE Grievance Redress in Karnataka", Economic & Political Weekly, 49 (23). Centre for Civil Society (2011): "A Perception Study on the Implementation and Impact of Clause 12", http://righttoeducation.in/sites/default/ fi les/Perception%20study%20on%20the%20 implementation%20and%20impact%20of%20 Clause%2012.pdf Day, Christopher, Pam Sammons, David Hopkins, Alma Harris, Ken Leithwood, Qing Gu and Alison Kington (2009): "The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes", Research Report DCSF-RR108, National College for School Leadership, Dept of Children, Schools and Families, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk /11329/1/DCSFRR108. pdf Deepika, K (2013): "The Challenge Begins Now for 'RTE Children'", The Hindu, 4 January, http:// www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/ the-challenge-begins-now-for-rte-children/article4567558. ece Desai, S, C Adams and A Dubey (2010): "Segmented Schooling: Inequalities in Primary Education" in S Thorat and K Newman (ed.), Blocked by Caste: Economic Discrimination and Social E xclusion in Modern India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press). Desai, S, A Dubey, R Vanneman and R Banerji (2008): "Private Schooling in India: A New Educational Landscape", India Policy Forum, 5 (1), pp 1-58. Desai, S and A Thorat (2012): "Social Inequalities in Education" in India Infrastructure Report, 2012: Private Sector in Education (New Delhi: Routledge), pp 44-51. Duncan, Greg J and Richard J Murnane (2011): "Introduction" in Greg J Duncan and Richard J Murnane (ed.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children's Life Chances (New York: Russel Sage Foundation). Jain, P S and R H Dholakia (2010): "Right to Education Act and Public-Private Partnership", Economic & Political Weekly, http://www.epw.in/ discussion/right-education-act-and-public-private- partnership.html Juneja, Nalini (2005): "Exclusive Schools in Delhi: Their Land and the Law", Economic & Political Weekly, 40 (33). Khan, Imran (2012): "No Way to Teach a Lesson in Class", Tehelka, 8 April, http://tehelka.com/ no-way-to-teach-a-lesson-in-class/ Louis, K S, L Kenneth, K L Wahlstrom, S E Anderson, M Michlin, B Mascal and S Moore (2010): "Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Final Report of Research to the Wallace Foundation", University of Minnesota and University of T oronto, http://www.wallacefoundation.org/ knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/ Documents/Investigating-the-Linksto- Improved-Student-Learning.pdf Lipsky, M (2010): Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (30th Anniversary Edition), Russell Sage Foundation. Majumdar, M and J Mooij (2012): Education and Inequalit y in India: A Classroom View, Routledge. Noronha, C and P Srivastava (2013): "India's Right to Education Act: Household Experiences and Private School Responses", Education Support Program Working Paper Series 2013, No 53, PERI, Open Societies Foundations. Padma, M, A M Sarangapani, R Mukhopadhyay and A Namala (2014): "Inclusion of Marginalised Children in Private Unaided Schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009", Oxfam India. Planning Commission (2011): "Approach Paper to Twelfth Five-Year Plan", http://planningcommission. gov.in/plans/planrel/12appdrft/appraoch_ 12plan.pdf Pritchett, L (2009): "Is India a Flailing State? Detours on the Four Lane Highway to Modernization", HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series No RWP09-013, Harvard, https://research.hks. harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation. aspx?PubId=6599&type=FN&PersonId=88 Ramachandran, V and T Naorem (2013): "What It Means To Be a Dalit or Tribal Child in Our Schools", Economic & Political Weekly, 48 (44). Resh, N and Y Dar (1992): "Learning Segregation in Junior High Schools in Israel: Causes and Consequences", School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(4), pp 272-92. - (2011): "The Rise and Fall of School Integration in Israel: Research and Policy Analysis", British Educational Research Journal, 38 (6), pp 929-51. Sarkar, C C (2012): "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Its Implementation" in Private Sector in Education, Routledge, pp 33-43. Shah, P (2009): "School Choice: Assuring Quality Education to All", Vikalpa, 34(2), pp 70-77. Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (2012): No WP No 95 of 2010, Supreme Court of India, 4 December, http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/ temp/95201031242012p.txt Srivastava, P and C Noronha (2014): "Institutional Framing of the Right to Education Act: Contestation, Controversy and Concessions", Economic & Political Weekly, 49 (18), pp 51-58. Tilak, J B G (2012): "Right to Homeschooling vs Right to Education", Economic & Political Weekly, 47 (41), pp 19-20. Velaskar, P (2010): "Quality and Inequality in I ndian Education: Some Critical Policy Concerns", Contemporar y Education Dialogue, 7 (1), pp 58-93. Wallace Foundation (2012): The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning. Welman, J C and F Kruger (2001): Research Methodology: For the Business and Administrative Sciences, Oxford University Press. sept embe r 20, 2014 vol xlI X no 38 EPW Economic & Political Weekly -- Avinash Shahi Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
