The Right to Education Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha last week. Some of the important provisions of the Bill include (a) the right of every child between the age of six and 14 years to get elementary education in a neighbourhood school; (b) prohibition of capitation fee or screening tests at the time of admission; (c) 25% of seats in all private schools to be reserved for children from disadvantaged groups and poor children; (d) ban on failing a child in any class; (e) minimum norms on infrastructure and student-teacher ratio for private schools; and (f) national and state advisory councils to advise the government on implementation.

The vision for elementary education system varies from one extreme of having a common school system to the other end of school vouchers. Votaries of common schools argue for abolition of private schools. They claim that this will force the elite to have a direct stake in better functioning of government schools. It would also foster a sense of common citizenship between different social classes. Proponents of the voucher system say that each child (at least the poor) should be given vouchers which they can use instead of fees. This will enable them to attend a school of their choosing. They claim that increasing competition among schools to attract students will lead to improvement in quality. The Bill takes a middle path. Private schools will continue to exist but will have to reserve 25% of seats to poor children and no fee may be charged. The cost will be partly borne by the government, and the remaining by the school.

There are several issues that need to be addressed. Some of these were pointed out by the Standing Committee and by MPs during the Rajya Sabha debate. The first question is who will foot the bill to implement the provisions. Section 7 states that the central government will provide financial support to the extent it decides in consultation with the states. It may also ask the Finance Commission (which will submit its report this October) to take into consideration the higher burden on state finances. It places the final responsibility on the state governments. The estimates for incremental funding required varies widely. In 2005, the Central Advisory Board of Education had estimated that a sum between Rs 3.2 lakh crore and 4.4 lakh crore was required over a period of six years. The Standing Committee was told by the HRD ministry that that the new estimate by NUEPA was Rs 2.3 lakh crore over seven years. There is no clarification on the reason behind the steep decline in estimated requirement. Several MPs as well as the Standing Committee have demanded that the Centre?s share should be fixed upfront, and that several states may not be in a position to bear the financial burden.

Several commentators have written on the 25% quota in private schools. Two constitutional issues need to be addressed. First, whether reserving seats for poor children (who may not be from the ?socially and educationally backward classes?) violates Article 15 of the Constitution. And whether this requirement of minority institutions violates Article 30. The more important issue is whether the law can ensure that schools will implement this provisions in the spirit of having mixed classes and equal access and opportunity. Otherwise some schools may resort to discriminatory behaviour and segregating the poorer children. The bill proposes that the government will pay the school the same amount it spends per child in government schools. The Standing Committee feared that this amount may be insufficient and the financial burden of teaching these children will fall on the other 75% students.

The Standing Committee has also opined against the idea of not failing any child. It felt the need to ?motivate the child to compete and improve?, and the need for ?an element of fear through proper evaluation lest the non performers may become a liability to society?. It recommended a minimum level of grading or standardisation for the child to be promoted to the next class. Indeed, this sentiment touches upon the issue of quality of education. That is, whether the children in school are able to meet standard learning norms and any remedial measures are taken to help the laggards. The only provision in the bill is to say that the duty of the teacher includes learning assessment and supplemental additional instruction.

The UPA government will likely redeem at least one of its promises for the first 100 days. The Bill is a step in the right direction but still leaves open the issues of financing and quality of education. One hopes that these are resolved when the rules are framed.

?The author heads research at PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi