Related Stories Farming out prosperity1984: the Dow storyRiots+economic growth=?India in the hot seatSocial justice without PhDs

 A recent Delhi high court judgment stops the functioning of private schools that are not recognised by the government. The argument against such schools broadly is that many such schools do not have adequate infrastructure, or follow established education norms. Since they do not have any certification from the relevant government authorities, it is thought they are “not good enough”. The honourable high court therefore decided that only recognised schools can operate.

The key question is not whether such schools meet the norms decided by the government, but whether they meet a supply gap in educational options for the masses. As of today, a very large part of pre-primary and primary education is provided by such schools. They compete with government schools for students. But unlike the government schools, they charge a fee, do not provide free mid-day meals, and typically have fewer freebies. Why then do parents prefer to send their children to such schools? The answer is quite obvious — parents consider such schools more beneficial for their wards than government schools, and they are willing to pay for it.

Education is all about quality. It is difficult to measure the quality of education but certain proxies are typically used by the authorities — these include the kind of infrastructure the school has, how well the teachers are trained, the type of content included in the coursework, teaching methods, etc. If certain norms are met, the relevant government authority is supposed to “recognise” the school.

All this sounds good on paper, but the point is that it is very difficult to measure how well the teacher is teaching (or whether he is teaching at all). Only those buying the education services can be expected to know, through experience, whether their ward is learning something and whether such learning will be beneficial for her. The fact is that, today, a large number of parents consider such schools more beneficial than competing government schools. By eliminating such schools therefore we are constraining the parents’ choice of schooling for their children.

Most such education related norms have been imported from the West, often much before Independence. And these norms have been criticised often. Take this speech by Mahatma Gandhi at Chatham House (later, The Royal Institute of International Affairs) on October 20, 1931:

“The village schools were not good enough for the British administrator, so he came out with his programme. Every school must have so much paraphernalia, building, and so forth... There are statistics left by a British administrator which show that... ancient schools have gone by the board, because there was no recognition for these schools... I defy anybody to fulfil a programme of compulsory primary education of these masses inside of a century. This very poor country of mine is ill able to sustain such... [a] method of education.”

Note that Gandhi was not criticising the system on its colonial orientation, but on the norms that were being imposed by the government. He was also not criticising the norms per se, but was against making formal government recognition dependent on these norms. I make a less strong demand — even if the government does not want to recognise such schools, we should at least let them continue.

This decision is quite symptomatic of a deeper problem. When the quality of a product or service is suspect in the eyes of the establishment, it desires to eliminate that product or service by fiat. One can criticise such decisions on many counts: First, such decisions curtail choice and freedom of the consumers. Second, rarely can the government implement such orders efficiently enough. Third, it provides inordinate powers to the bureaucracy and results in corruption. Fourth, businesses love to use the “bad quality” argument to eliminate competition with government backing. And fifth, such acts curtail innovation.

We are all aware of the CAS fiasco. The cable operators provided bad service and consumers did not have adequate choice in their cable TV channel selection. So the government mandated the universal usage of the set-top box. The argument being that this would offer more choice to the consumer. The argument is of course flawed; we cannot increase choice by reducing competition. If indeed CAS is beneficial enough, consumers will demand it, and the free market will ensure its introduction and spread. There is no need to enforce its use through laws, regulations and orders that eliminate its competitor.

Today, my parents struggle with multiple remote controls and poor quality while they pay more than they used to. They would like to go back to the good old days of pre-selected channels, single remote and lower monthly charges. But they do not have that choice anymore.

Another example is that of technology standards. Recently the establishment (academia and government) voted in favour of a single standard in the internet space, whereas the industry voted to accept the simultaneous operation of more than one standard. Life may be simpler if there is a single standard, but the consumer knows what is best for her. If the industry (the consumer) feels that they would rather have a choice of standards, by all means allow it.

As I type this out using a standard QWERTY keyboard, I know that I am using something that is not the best possible. Experts have measured efficiency and quality and found this keyboard quite inferior to others. Thankfully, they did not ban the use of such a keyboard. Had they done that, I would have gone to the black market and bought one, or asked someone to surreptitiously make one for me. As an user, I know that QWERTY is the best for me, whatever the experts may say.

Apart from areas where there is a direct impact on health and life, such as pharmaceuticals and food products, it is not advisable to mandate the elimination of a service or product that is thought to be of poor quality by some, even if those people are the experts. This is the only way to ensure adequate choice for the consumer, prevent control by big business and bureaucracy and consequent corruption, and facilitate innovation and change. Let the consumer vote with his wallet.