Its been really long, I read an article like this from Indian media. this is from Wall Street journal, worth a read, INDIA experimenting with its primary level education system.
The Right to Education Act, passed in 2009, mandates that private schools set aside 25% of admissions for low-income, underprivileged and disabled students. In Delhi, families earning less than 100,000 rupees (about $2,500 a year) qualify.
Sounds like an excellent idea, a probable thought to bridge the gap between rich & poor society of India.
But is the gap really this small in a rigid hierarchical society like India where rich/poor, employer/servant are 2 different side of coins?
The results obtained so far are frustration and disappointment. The coveted class children come to school prepared with basics like alphabets, colors, and may be some extra general knowledge. Their social skills is in striking contrast to the ones living in slums. Teachers find it hard to focus on the slow paced students, what they could earlier achieve in a week is taking 3 weeks now. Is it fair on the part of kids who have the ability to do better?
Is this jarring juxtaposition justified? It is obviously necessary to bridge this gap, but sometimes the gap is just too wide. The same set of poor students need to be taken care of separately. May be more special classes. As a matter of fact, how about improving the standards of government school? Why enforce private schools to adjust?
No comments:
Post a Comment