Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

What class are you in?

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • The right to education bill was long overdue. While the quality related provisions of the bill leave much to be desired, one of its more interesting provisions is the requirement that private schools take in at least 25 per cent students from marginalised communities within the neighbourhood. Since the state will reimburse the schools based on its average spending per child, some see in this provision of the bill

    elements of a voucher system. But this provision could, if implemented correctly, usher in far-reaching social changes. It will force us to confront an unspoken issue in Indian society: how we educate children into a culture of equality and reciprocity in the face of immense inequality. While there is an abstract allegiance to norms of equality and rights in a formal sense, the social mores and interpersonal norms of recognition are marked by all the disfigurements of hierarchy.

    Ads by Google

    In many ways, recent social developments have contributed to the evasion rather than a resolution of this issue. One of the, perhaps unintended, by-products of the reservation discourse was this. On the one hand, it immobilised far more discomforting discussions about discrimination and the norms of social behaviour that would give minimal meaning to recognising the equal moral worth of all citizens; on the other hand, it converted what should have been a discussion about debilitating hierarchy into a political clash over identity.

    Second, despite the rhetoric of inclusion, our institutional architectures were de facto creating new forms of segregation. One of the biggest worries about private education is that, despite all its promise, its capacity to segregate by class is immense; fee structures make this an inevitable outcome. Arguably, the top private schools are now even more upper class than old “convent” schools. Within the state structure itself, the state was able to give access but not dismantle social hierarchies. One of the most shocking pieces of research suggests that Dalit children were more likely to be subject to corporal punishment at the hands of government school teachers. One of the reasons for preferring private schools by the poor is the perception that low-end private schools, whatever their quality, are less likely to be degrading experiences for children. And many government institutions have also encouraged a form of segregation. There are other interesting patterns. A few years ago, it was possible for children to “mix” across social classes, at least in play; the streets and parks, forms of play, were at least temporarily open spaces for kids. Those spaces exist even less. To be sure, that form of mixing was still marked by a sense of hierarchy and power, but in an odd sense privileged kids a few years ago were more likely to have a sense of children with deprivation than they do now.

    ... contd.

    Next1234
    reimbursement should be result-basedBy: bzbody | 23-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward For it to properly work, the schools shouldn't be allowed to just keep the underprivileged kids as mistreated passengers that are looked down upon by their upper class peers. They should be made to devise ways of educating them so that they will actually achieve a certain minimum percentage marks in statewide public exams. Schools can be given training and assistance from social sciences researchers in doing this. Otherwise the effort will be meaningless and a waste of money.
    Divisive Yet ReformsBy: Rishibha Gupta | 23-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward India has a legacy of divisive reforms. This particularly holds true of the education reforms in our country. Children are divided on the basis of caste and class to make them a part of the mainstream. This divisiveness will however further weaken the society. Along with the 25% seats in neighboring private schools, why dont we realize that true results will follow when the existing government schools impart proper education. 'Education for all' will be achieved not merely by these divisive policies but by making use of existing infrastructure, in the form of various government schools.
    Segregation has increased umpteen timesBy: Siddhartha | 23-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward This is a great step forward by the government. I dont buy Arvind's argument about first creating a achievers amongst underprivileged as this has nothing to do with achievement. I grew up in neighbourhood, where the adjacent house could be a very small one owned by a barber, another small one owned by a washerman. Children from mansions and this houses played cricket together. Today be it plot sizes in colonies, or apartment blocks, create a segragation based on economic status. Same is true of schools. I feel my sons experience as he grows up would be that much less richer because he would grow up among certain strata of population. Any efforts to fight this is welcome
    he is positive- well somewhatBy: Arvind s | 23-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward on second reading of the piece - he is overall looking forward to it (if not sanguine about it). I am not sure I buy the argument about making excuses. My worry is that this step is really an overarching de-segregation that nobody is ready for. It is all very well to say the poor and the rich ought to be educated together; yes that is a noble sentiment. However, the best way to break the caste/class stereotypes is not forced de-segregation but creation of an achiever class within the underprivileged. We should focus on what will best achieve that goal. That will wipe away prejudice better than any affirmative action. "Educating them together" - especially in a forced way - is to confuse the means with the ends
    not as sanguine as Dr. MBy: Arvind S | 23-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward This move will only further entrench hierarchy. It will make the under-privileged more conscious and resentful and the privileged more arrogant. It is not enough to subsidize the school the cost of tuition alone. Differences arising in other ways (think better shoes, access to leisure goods etc.) are deadlier. These may not sound important to us adults, but are very important to kids. The worst losers in the system will be the bright amongst the underprivileged. Instead of this American-style forced de-segregation (to use the American term), we should go with the British style grammar school system. The intellectually bright amongst the underprivileged should be selected and provided best-in-class i.e. private sector equivalent schools. it will lead to a "creamy layer" within the deprived, but at least the cream will rise based on merit and not as a result of forced de-segregation (which in the US actually ended up hurting black kids school acheivement the most)
    sanguineBy: vidura | 23-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward I dont think Mehta's column is sanguine. In fact it highlights what a difficult social issue this will be -- see all the stuff about self esteem. and Mehta talks about resentment and ghettoization. yes tuition subsidy alone will not work. there will have to be a broader support infrastructure. but we have to stop making excuses that rich and poor kids should not be educated together.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.