In recent days, there has been some debate about the merits of introducing a voucher system for elementary schools. The principle behind this is simple — instead of funding schools, the government works out an appropriate value that should be made available to each child, and provides this to parents in the form of a voucher that can be redeemed in any school of their choice. At first glance, this is a wonderfully simple and attractive system; parents get to choose their children’s school, while schools have to compete to make sure that they receive enough vouchers to stay in operation — this implies that they have to improve their quality of education, since parents will choose the best institutions. The market is thus harnessed to eliminate dysfunctional schools and improve all round educational quality.

Voucher systems have been introduced in several countries around the world, including the US, UK, and Chile. A Delhi-based NGO recently took up a pilot project under which selected poor families will be provided vouchers worth Rs 300 per month, redeemable in various private schools around their neighbourhood.

However, researchers agree that available data on the voucher system is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about improvement in academics, access or racial integration. In the US, there have been mixed reactions; the Florida State Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the voucher programme for students in the lowest-rated public schools was unconstitutional, as vouchers violated state constitutional provisions requiring a ‘uniform’ system of public schools for all students. A study carried out for the Minnesota Education Association could not establish that availability of choice improves learning levels — for example, in maths, voucher student scores were essentially the same in the first and second year, rose in the third year, and declined significantly during the year that followed.

... contd.