M
uch to his chagrin, political power-broker Amar Singh couldn’t get his kids into Delhi’s Sanskriti School. But Chandrama Singh, a canny Bihari who does minor electrical work, was luckier: thanks to a 2004 Delhi High Court order requiring all the capital’s private schools to reserve at least one in five seats for children of the poor. Last year, Chandrama, who lives in a slum colony behind Sanskriti called Sanjay Gandhi Basti, got his daughter Pratibha into the elite school on Delhi’s embassy row, packed with the kids of bureaucrats, politicians and professionals.
As their peppy six-year old, who has just graduated from nursery to prep, takes us through Red Riding Hood, in Hindi spiked with English, her parents listen, rapt. "In just one year, it’s all changed, the way she walks, talks, eats," says her mother Munni, who collects water in jerrycans for Pratibha’s morning bath, pays an istriwallah to iron her uniform every day and keeps a glossy stack of Parents’ Day pictures in her jhuggi. As I leave, a bunch of basti women, mistaking me for a Sanskriti rep, want to know: "When are you taking applications?"
Poor kids, rich schools. In Sanjay Gandhi Basti, they are frankly thrilled. But for all the noise about quality schooling for the ‘weaker sections’ and the arguments in favour of ‘economic criteria’, quotas for the poor are as controversial as caste-based reservations in the ‘authorised’ world of private schools—among proprietors, principals, teachers, fee-paying parents. Some private schools ignored the government directive that followed from the court order, among them leading Delhi schools that had wangled three- and four-acre plots of public land, at prices that would not fetch them a three-bedroom Delhi Development Authority flat, by promising to allot one-fourth of their seats to the poor. Others put in token ads offering freeships but turned deaf when NGOs came up with names. Or admitted poor kids, only to turf them out later. Some went to court, leading to a legal dispute over whether schools not built on cheap public land should follow the directive.
But a handful of schools have bitten the bullet and taken kids of cleaners, factory workers, domestic help and slum families into mainstream classrooms. Not as many as the courts stipulated, but many more than they have ever done. Lawyer Ashok Agarwal, who filed the PIL (on behalf of NGO Social Jurist) that led to the court’s intervention, estimates that about 30 private schools have admitted poor kids on freeships in the last year. Two elite establishments, Vasant Valley School and Shriram School (whose Parent Staff Association went against the tide by urging the school to embrace the policy), said they would admit poor kids from July. "A few schools are coming around to partly following the court’s order, but implementing this policy is going to be a long—and necessary—fight," says Agarwal.
And, even as the Centre seems to be backtracking on its own plan on quotas for "weaker sections" in private schools across the country, a committee of educationists led by NCERT director Prof Krishna Kumar has pushed the case for Delhi to play a pioneering role in creating more inclusive classrooms.
The committee, appointed by the state government on the high court’s directions, recommends that at least 25 per cent of the seats in all Delhi’s private schools—not just those that took cheap land—should be allotted to the poor to achieve a "critical mass" of poor children in each school. It asks for them to be taken only in nursery, KG and Class I, so that schools have time to plan and adjust, retrain teachers and rework curricula. Tapping into the wider policy debate on a school system in which kids study either in ghettos of poverty or of privilege, the committee points out that it is not just a question of cheap land: "Divisive schooling reinforces existing hierarchies and promotes in the educated sections of society an indifference towards the plight of the poor."
Words sure to raise hackles among some members of those very sections, even if the committee recommends that the state government foot the bill. There are many who believe afternoon classes for the poor, after the regular crowd has departed, should be as good as it gets. High-profile proprietresses hold forth on discipline problems, bad language and poor English: fee-paying mothers mutter darkly about head-lice and toilet manners, and complain, "The state wants to dump its burden on us and take away seats from our children."
The discipline and hygiene arguments are not just callous, but misplaced, say staff at schools that are trying to implement the court’s order with a measure of sincerity—if anything, most poor kids, and their parents, are rather too anxious to fit in. Poor English skills are a challenge, but not a crippling one, they say, especially when the kids join early, and despite the language impediment, many kids are doing well.
"The middle class seem to have forgotten where they came from. These children have a huge need to prove themselves and are eager to learn," says Rita Kaul, the principal of Heritage School in Vasant Kunj, which so far has 70 children on freeships among 900-odd students who pay Rs 3,000 a month to attend the centrally air-conditioned school. Apart from free tuition, the school’s management picks up the tab for books, day-trips, uniforms, and lunch. "We take care of what we can, to reduce discrimination. It’s the only way it can work," says Kaul.