Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
2022 Dec 10:1–10. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s12564-022-09815-z

Discrimination against private-school students under a special quota for the underprivileged: a case in India

Atul Kumar 1, Vinaydeep Brar 2, Chetan Chaudhari 3, Shirish S Raibagkar 4,✉
PMCID: PMC9736718

Abstract

The Indian government enacted the Right to Education Act (RTE) to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all economically underprivileged children between ages 6 and 14. All schools, including private schools, are required to reserve 25% of their enrollment slots for such students, with the government shouldering their fees. While student enrollment has increased, some challenges have emerged in the schooling of RTE students. We surveyed the parents of 400 RTE students and interviewed five private-school principals. Findings showed that private schools practice discrimination against RTE students, who are susceptible to various risks. Private schools argue that for the past several years, the government has not paid the fees for these students. Based on the social equity theory of education, we suggest that the fees of underprivileged students be charged to the majority of upper- and middle-class students.

Keywords: Social equity theory, School students, Private schools, Discrimination, Financial problem

Introduction

In a landmark decision, the Indian government passed the Right to Education Act (RTE) in 2009 to provide children between ages 6 and 14 free and compulsory elementary education, fulfilling the requirement set in Article 21a of its constitution. With the RTE Act coming into force on April 1, 2010, India became one of 135 countries to declare education a fundamental right of every child (RightToEducation.In, 2013). The law makes education a basic right for every child between 6 and 14 years old and clarifies basic requirements for primary schools. According to the RTE Act, all private schools must reserve 25% of their enrollment seats for children (with the government reimbursing fees as part of a public–private partnership program). In India, private schools are not under government management and control and are classified into two: aided and unaided (Gandhi-Kingdon, 2017). Aided private schools receive grant-in-aid for salaries and/or other items of expenditures, while unaided private schools receive no funding support from the government and, except for the fees, manage their finances independently. Private schools enroll children based on their economic status or category-based reservations. This prevents unrecognized schools from operating, facilitates non-donation or capitation funding, and eliminates the practice of child or parent interviews. The RTE Act also provides that no child should be turned away, expelled, or required to pass a board examination until they complete their elementary school education. Specialized training is also offered to students who drop out of school to fit in with students of the same age. Following the implementation of the RTE Act, the gross enrollment ratio increased from 109.101 in 2010 to a high of 114.538 in 2016 (World Bank, 2022).

Currently, however, all is not well with economically backward students enrolled through the 25% quota. Sarasvati (2020) cited the case of a laborer who was treated like a second-class citizen when he tried to register his daughter in a neighboring private-school and was also asked to pay for the cost of books, which was to be paid by the government: “The barriers Kale (laborer) faced are critical reasons why the RTE reservation system in Maharashtra is struggling to reach its objective: to provide free, inclusive education while incentivizing private schools by reimbursing their costs for educating poor, disadvantaged children, we found. If the Andheri School had followed RTE rules, Kale would not be forced to pay for his daughter’s books nor would he be made to feel humiliated and unwelcome.” Sarasvati added that private schools force RTE students to sit in separate classrooms. These unfair practices hinder RTE students’ academic development.

Joshi (2021) reported that 1267 English-medium schools from Maharashtra, which are private schools, decided to boycott the RTE admissions for the academic year 2021–2022 because of the government’s failure to pay several years of fees for these students. Meanwhile, the government has threatened these schools with strict actions if they do not comply with the provisions of the RTE Act. The association of these schools is seeking the intervention of the high court. This shows that the government and private schools are at a standstill, threatening the future of thousands of underprivileged students.

One way to examine this phenomenon is from the perspective of the social responsibility of private schools. Lightstone (2008) stated that scant research has been done to investigate private schools’ social responsibility. Ojha and Chakravarty (2012) criticized private schools for being operated for profit and non-inclusive, while in India, most private schools are established as charitable trusts and not-for-profit organizations. Therefore, no income tax is imposed on their profits since Indian tax laws designate surpluses from charitable activities as tax-exempt (Income Tax Department, 2022). However, private schools are found to discriminate against children admitted under the RTE quota. The term “discrimination” has changed with a broad spectrum of social exclusion, which has widened. For instance, the India Exclusion Report 2013–2014 (Centre for Equity Studies, 2014) discussed exclusions for girls, Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and children with disabilities. However, discrimination has been observed against the 25% RTE quota.

As a result of the 25% admission quota impasse, the underprivileged faced discrimination in terms of social equity and equality. Hence, the purpose of the RTE Act is being defeated because of private schools’ refusal to cooperate with the government.

Additionally, situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic have only worsened this scenario. One can imagine the plight of RTE quota students who have been deprived of school during the pandemic period because they lack access to digital resources for attending online classes. School authorities have not done much to overcome this digital divide, and RTE quota students have continued to suffer.

Mohalik and Sethy (2021) found abysmally low attendance among students in government schools in tribal areas such as Jharkhand state. In these areas, most students regularly skip school because they perform domestic chores and take care of their siblings during school hours. The children also work to earn a livelihood, which disrupts their school attendance. Such schools would need to be shut down, which only aggravates the problem.

Other measures have been implemented, such as the Mid-day Meal Scheme, which provides free lunch to students in government-run schools but has been criticized for the poor quality of food (The Economic Times, 2014). A revamp of the scheme has been demanded.

The Indian government recently announced its National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. According to Kakumanu (2022), the NEP strengthens the RTE by addressing three important dimensions of education delivery: students, teachers, and parents. The NEP aims to enhance the educational infrastructure in small towns and rural areas. When these places become self-sufficient in providing education to their inhabitants, the equitable provision of education as envisioned in the RTE will become a more achievable goal. If this happens, RTE provisions could be revamped as the NEP aims for robust systemic changes especially for small towns and rural areas.

Sabale (2017) observed that despite the Indian government’s adoption of an inclusive education strategy, underprivileged students continue to lag in academic development. Sharma and Subramanyam (2020) found that Indian underprivileged students faced discrimination, which led to poor academic performance, low self-esteem, and weak motivation.

Based on reports such as that of Sarasvati (2020) and literature by Sabale (2017) and Sharma and Subramanyam (2020), we set the first objective of our study: to find out whether students enrolled in the RTE quota in private schools are facing discrimination. We propose to achieve this goal by surveying a sizable number of parents of RTE students. For balance, our second objective is to understand the problems faced by private schools in dealing with RTE students. We propose to meet this objective by interviewing five principals of private schools.

Our study is grounded on the social equity theory of education, examines the situation through the lens of this theory, and draws important implications.

The definition of “discrimination” adopted by this study is consistent with the one in the Protection of Child Rights Act 2005, which shields children from discrimination based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth, or other status. The act is enforced by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights.

The remainder of the paper is organized into four sections: literature review, methods, data analysis and results, and conclusion.

Literature review

We begin the review by examining studies on the social equity theory of education to provide the theoretical framework for our study. We also review literature related to discrimination against students, highlighting the normative nature of the social equity theory of education.

Social equity theory of education

In an influential study, Gonski et al. (2011) argued that equity implies that children must have equal access to schooling and opportunities to succeed regardless of their socioeconomic status, language, or ethnic background. Drawing on Field et al.’s (2007) definition, Gonski et al. stated that their definition of equity focuses on two constructs: fairness and inclusivity. Fairness means that social and personal circumstances are not impediments to reaching one’s academic potential, while inclusivity ensures a minimum level of education for all. Caldwell and Spinks (2008) observed that given the right support and circumstances, all children can learn and achieve at school. McKown (2013) suggested that the racial–ethnic achievement gap be studied based on an understanding of its origins from social equity theory. Kamat (2008) examined two educationally disadvantaged groups from India and recommended an inclusive strategy based on social equity theory. She highlighted that the two groups—scheduled castes and scheduled tribes—should have access to education on the grounds of inclusivity. Rizvi and Lingard (2011) asserted that the notion of social equity cannot be fully understood in a generalized abstract manner and can instead be better viewed as a collection of several competing and contrasting views. Fowler and Brown (2018) stated that viewing equity theory through the lens of social justice can provide data that can help marginalized students improve their educational achievements. Rosenbloom (2005), discussing the limitations of a symposium on social equity in public affairs education, emphasized the need to define social equity. Espinoza (2007) reviewed the literature on the “equity–equality” conceptual dilemma (in education) and suggested concepts such as “equity for equal needs,” “equity for equal potential,” “equity for equal achievement,” “equality of opportunity,” and “equality for all.”

The Indian government’s legislative intent, the RTE Act, can be correlated with the social equity theory of education since it is based on the principles of fairness and inclusivity, among others (Field et al., 2007; Gonski et al., 2011). It seeks to provide compulsory and free education to underprivileged children. However, it has encountered a crisis, challenging the ideologies of fairness and inclusivity. These are discussed in the conclusion section.

Discrimination faced by students

Moran (2002), examining gender and race-based discrimination, highlighted diverse views on the nature and incidence of discrimination at schools. Welply (2018) found that race-based discrimination at schools is tacit and cumulative and that Muslim children are positioned as the “bad other.” Losen and Welner (2001) described the systemic nature of discrimination practiced in U.S. public schools. Regarding racial discrimination, Reskin (2012) stated that discrimination is a meta-level phenomenon that shapes culture, cognition, and institutions.

Hanassab (2006) found that international students in U.S. higher-learning institutions face varying degrees of discrimination. Tran et al. (2020) discussed the worldwide escalation of racism and discrimination against Asian students since the COVID-19 outbreak. Dehadray (2019) found that discrimination is practiced in the punishment of students; those from socially disadvantaged classes are penalized more than other students. Feagin (1992) found that black students face discrimination in enrollment and graduation rates in colleges run by white officials. Poyrazil and Lopez (2007), in a U.S.-based study, found that international students faced higher discrimination and therefore experienced more homesickness compared with U.S. students. Among international students, those from Europe encountered less discrimination and were less homesick than those from other parts of the world. Thorat and Neuman (2012) investigated the discrimination faced by Dalits (socially backward) and minority students, which leads to inequalities in various aspects of their life. Siraj et al. (2021) reported gender-based discrimination faced by female medical students in Georgia, while Evivie (2009) found that African students face discrimination in the United States. Beemyn (2003) examined discrimination against transgender students, and Thomson (2013) investigated general ethnic discrimination faced by Native American postsecondary students. Brown and Tylka (2011) observed that racial discrimination places African Americans at risk for psychological distress, in which they experience low levels of well-being. D’augelli (1992) discussed the discrimination faced by lesbian and gay undergraduate students. Channar et al. (2017) highlighted the discrimination against female postgraduate students at Jamshoro University in Pakistan. Usher et al. (2005) found that undergraduate nursing students across Australia experience discrimination. Schmitt et al. (2003) observed that the discrimination faced by international students diminishes their self-esteem. Shaukat and Pell (2015) found that female students from the arts faculty in the Lahore district of Pakistan faced discrimination. Starovoytova and Namango  (2016) found that female engineering students experienced gender-based discrimination, while Arora (2021) observed students who have migrated to Delhi, the capital of India, from other parts of the country encountered discrimination based on race, gender, and caste. Matsheka and Garutsa (2022) focused on the discrimination faced by racial minority students in Germany and South Africa, and Creighton (2007) discussed the discrimination faced by African American students in the United States, resulting in lower graduation rates. Yoo et al. (2010) pointed out the discrimination faced by Asian students studying in the United States, while Huang (2012) specifically discussed discrimination against Chinese international students, also in the United States. Sanders (1997) examined racial discrimination experienced by African American students and its negative consequences. John et al. (2018) focused on the case of male nursing students in the minority (25%), who also faced discrimination. Ressa et al. (2021) discussed the discrimination that students face for having speech and visual disabilities. Ahn et al. (2021) investigated discrimination encountered by Asian American medical students. Vedhavalli (2021) examined gender-based discrimination against female students in Turkey. Okech et al. (2020) studied the discrimination faced by students with special needs. Letsoalo et al. (2020) discussed a case of discrimination against gay and lesbian students from a semirural university in South Africa. Konur (2006) observed the discrimination encountered by disabled students in higher education. Melikan et al. (2020) highlighted the discrimination experienced by women studying medicine in two U.S. colleges. Amiri (2019) focused on religion-based discrimination. Wolanin and Steele (2004) examined the discrimination faced by students with disabilities. Chen (2022) discussed a case of gender-based discrimination against English learners from China. Azra (2014) observed that female students from Pakistan’s Sindh province experience discrimination.

The literature shows that students worldwide experience discrimination based on gender, social status, race, nationality, caste, religion, faculty membership, disability, and sexuality and that such discrimination has an adverse effect on these students. Indeed, recent studies imply that student discrimination remains a reality. However, scholars have not focused on discrimination in private schools based on a government-mandated quota for underprivileged students, who constitute a significant portion of the student population in India. Therefore, understanding the implications of such discrimination on the public–private partnership model, which the government has adopted to educate its vast population, would be beneficial. This study is expected to clarify some practical dynamics of the social equity theory of education.

Based on the two sections of the literature review, we construct the following hypotheses:

Ho: RTE students face no discrimination at private schools (normative theory).

Ha: RTE students face discrimination at private schools (practical situation).

Methods

Two research methods were adopted in the study. First, a quantitative survey was conducted to ascertain if discrimination against RTE students is indeed practiced at private schools. This survey did not include the parents of students from government-owned public schools and exclusively involved private schools. Second, to understand the problems of the private schools, a qualitative method was used.

Given the large population of RTE students, the survey used a sample size of 400. References to standard sample size tables such as Krejcie and Morgan (1970) indicate a sample size of 370 for a population of 10,000 at a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval. We rounded this off to 400 to address sampling errors. We then performed convenience and snowball sampling to gather responses from parents of RTE students from all over India. The World Health Organization lists two Indian national ethics committees for the ethical approval of medical or biotechnology research: the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Bioethics Committee of the Department of Biotechnology of the Ministry of Science and Technology (World Health Organization, 2015). Since our study is outside the purview of clinical or biotechnological research, local ethics committee approval is not applicable.

We distributed about 500 questionnaires and closed the survey upon receipt of the 400th response. The survey was administered through Google Forms and conducted during the second week of March 2022. The questionnaire contained a single section with 10 statements to ascertain if RTE students experienced discrimination. These statements were prepared based on secondary data (e.g., Sarasvati, 2020: RTE students made to sit in a separate class; Dehadray, 2019: Disadvantaged students are punished more) and informal discussions with some parents of RTE students. The 10 statements are as follows:

  1. The RTE students are made to sit in a separate classroom.

  2. Teachers are less attentive to RTE students.

  3. RTE students are never allowed to sit on front benches.

  4. RTE students are given fewer marks.

  5. Other evaluation of RTE students is done with reluctance.

  6. RTE students are given more punishment.

  7. RTE students are given fewer opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities.

  8. RTE students never get an opportunity to represent or lead the class.

  9. As parents, we receive discriminatory treatment at the parent–teacher meetings.

  10. RTE students are seldom encouraged to participate in interschool competitions.

Menold and Bogner (2016) recommended providing a “do not know” filter in the response options to provide for an early exit option in case the respondent did not know or wish to answer. The responses used a five-point Likert agree/disagree scale (Cannot say, Somewhat agree, Strongly agree, Somewhat disagree, and Strongly disagree). The survey questionnaire underwent a validation checklist as suggested by Brown et al. (2015), with satisfactory results. A reliability test produced a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.77.

We performed the following steps to test the hypotheses:

  1. The responses for the section were aggregated under two opposite groups of agreeing and disagreeing.

  2. While doing so for each extreme response, a weight of 2 was assigned to “Strongly agree” and “Strongly disagree” to distinguish them from “Somewhat agree” and “Somewhat disagree,” respectively.

  3. The “Cannot say” responses were ignored in the calculations by assigning a weight of zero.

  4. For each subquestion, an average score was calculated for the two opposite opinions of agreeing and disagreeing.

  5. A comparison was made to determine which of the two groups, agree or disagree, had a higher score.

  6. The higher average score percentage for the Likert scale section (Brown, 2011) was then compared with a hypothesized mean of the population of 50% score, connoting an event by chance and not due to statistical significance using a t-test, which is usually the case when the standard deviation of the population is unknown.

  7. p-value was calculated and the null hypothesis checked for rejection or nonrejection. The calculation was performed at a 99% confidence level.

  8. Statistical functions including standard deviation and MS Excel formulae such as t-dist were deployed for the calculations.

To understand the issues of private schools, a qualitative method was preferred since it involves some deeper probing, which might not be possible with a quantitative method. For the interviews, a sample size of five private-school principals was established. This sample size was based on the opinion of expert researcher Dworkin (2012), who said, “While some experts in qualitative research avoid the topic of ‘how many’ interviews are ‘enough,’ there is indeed variability in what is suggested as a minimum. Many articles, chapters, and books recommend guidance and suggest that anywhere from 5 to 50 participants are adequate” (p. 1319). The five private-school principals selected were senior men and women from different parts of the country, and all of them had rich experience in the field of school education of more than 20 years. They agreed to respond on conditions of strict anonymity. The responses received were carefully read and common themes identified. They were asked the following three questions:

  1. Is it the case that RTE students face discrimination at private schools? If yes, why?

  2. What are the problems faced by the private schools concerning RTE students?

  3. What do you think should be done to overcome the problems?

Data analysis and results

Survey data analysis

Table 1 presents the profile characteristics of the sample, which was a good representation of all four zones of India. All ages of RTE students (from 6 to 14 years) were well-represented as well.

Table 1.

Profile characteristics of the sample

Variable Category Respondents Percentage
Zone North 94 24%
East 107 27%
West 109 27%
South 90 23%
Gender Male 204 51%
Female 196 49%
Age of wards 6 years 39 10%
7 years 41 10%
8 years 33 8%
9 years 52 13%
10 years 47 12%
11 years 46 12%
12 years 52 13%
13 years 50 13%
14 years 40 10%
Open in a new tab

Source Primary data

Table 2 shows a plain count of the responses to the 10 statements. Table 3 displays a weighted summary of agreement and disagreement. Table 4 provides the statistical outcomes for the 10 statements and their averages.

Table 2.

Summary of responses to the 10 statements

Responses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cannot say 6 6 6 2 9 4 10 11 10 12
Somewhat agree 91 127 127 134 143 127 123 120 118 115
Strongly agree 85 138 138 167 144 157 139 149 152 161
Somewhat disagree 82 72 73 64 60 41 44 47 48 48
Strongly disagree 136 57 56 33 44 71 84 73 72 64
Total 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
Open in a new tab

Source Primary data

Table 3.

Weighted agreement/disagreement summary

Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average
Agree (%) 42 68 69 78 74 71 65 68 69 71 68
Disagree (%) 58 32 31 22 26 29 35 32 31 29 32
Open in a new tab

Source Primary data calculations

Table 4.

Statistical outcomes for the 10 statements

Statement Agree (%) t-value p-value
1 42  − 1.25 0.10593
2 68 3.49 0.00027**
3 69 3.52 0.00024**
4 78 6.14 0.00000**
5 74 4.80 0.00000**
6 71 3.84 0.00007**
7 65 2.67 0.00392**
8 68 3.30 0.00052**
9 69 3.39 0.00038**
10 71 3.95 0.00005**
Average 68 3.11 0.00101**
Open in a new tab

**Significant at the 99% confidence level

The average agreement of 68% was compared with the hypothesized population mean of 50%, connoting an agreement by chance and not due to statistical significance. Table 5 shows the results of the hypothesis testing.

Table 5.

Testing of the hypotheses

Parameter Value
Ho (Sample mean) 68%
SD (Standard deviation) 1.14
H1 (Hypothesized mean of population) 50%
n (Sample Size) 400
t-value 3.11
p-value 0.001
Decision Reject null
Open in a new tab

Source Primary data calculations

The aggregate (average) result of agreement of 68% is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level; since the average agreement is significantly higher than 50% (p = 0.001), the null hypothesis (RTE students face no discrimination at private schools) was rejected in favor of the alternate hypothesis (RTE students face discrimination at private schools).

It is important to note that the analysis relies on the principles of Likert scales rather than those of Likert items (Brown, 2011). In our analysis, the 10 statements are Likert items, which together constitute a Likert scale. Therefore, we tested the hypotheses based on the average of the 10 statements. All 10 statements were linked to a common underlying construct: discrimination against RTE students at private schools. Out of these 10, the first statement (the RTE students are made to sit in a separate classroom) was the only one where the average disagreement (58%) was higher than the average agreement (42%). For the rest of the statements, the average agreement was higher than the average disagreement. The highest agreement was recorded for the fourth statement (RTE students are given fewer marks). Agreement regarding other discriminatory practices ranged from 60 to 70%.

Interview data analysis

All five private-school principals interviewed as a part of the qualitative study agreed that RTE students face discrimination at private schools. The principals also expressed general agreement regarding our 10-statement list, which was shared with them along with the three questions. They further found that discrimination was quite rampant at English-medium private schools and were unanimous in saying that this was due to a significant cultural clash. Teachers experience difficulty in dealing with two groups of students—one that is raw, lacks manners and etiquette, and exhibits low intelligence and emotional quotient, and another with the exact opposite characteristics. One principal said, “Dealing with such a heterogeneous mix is stressful for the teachers. It affects their teaching and performance. They are always in a dilemma. If they pay more attention to the RTE students, they leave the 75% majority unattended who get disengaged. If they ignore the RTE students, they are the ones who suffer. So, eventually, they prefer to go with the majority; as a result, the RTE students face discrimination.” All five principals stated that teachers were aware that the government does not pay the fees for the RTE students on time, which in turn affects their salary. Thus, teachers may subconsciously blame RTE students for their delayed salaries, leading to negative attitudes and discriminatory practices.

In response to the second question, all five principals identified the state government’s failure to reimburse the fees for the RTE students as a major problem. According to one principal, “We are private unaided organizations. Our only source of income of ours is student fees. How will we function if 25% of the fees remain unpaid for years together? From where will we pay the salaries and other operating costs?” At least four principals stated that more than three years of their RTE fees have been pending with the state government. “If we follow up with the state government,” according to another principal, “they reply that they do not have funds and will pay when they receive funds from the central government.” Thus, the state government has been avoiding its responsibility of reimbursing the fees for the RTE students. According to the RTE Act, the government is responsible for providing free education, but instead, the government is imposing this responsibility on the schools. This may be acceptable with government schools to some extent but not so with private schools. The principals unanimously pointed out that this was a major departure by the government from the basic tenets of the RTE Act, which has created serious operational problems for private schools. The principal from Maharashtra said, “Situation now has gone out of control. This year (2021/22), we have decided to boycott the RTE admissions. Unless the government clears the previous outstanding fees of the RTE students, we are not going to admit fresh RTE students.”

Regarding the third question, the principals thought that the 25% reservation quota was extremely high. Two of them thought it should be lowered to 10%, while the other three felt that the quota should be 5%. The fact is that the government does not have the resources to fund the RTE program; hence, instead of being too ambitious, the government should be more practical and realistic. The central and the state government should convene and make a clear decision about sharing the burden of the fees for the RTE students. They should be reasonable in their approach and think pragmatically. Overambitious decisions have proven counterproductive.

With regard to discrimination, they argued that the divide between the two classes is so wide that practicing inclusivity in such a situation is extremely challenging; it is ideal and wishful thinking that there should be no discrimination. In practice, however, when a teacher must address a class with a majority of students from elite backgrounds and a minority from ordinary circumstances, they are bound to be tilted more toward the majority. These are some ground realities of teaching a heterogeneous group of students. One of the principals clarified, “It is not that they are doing this intentionally. But the situation is such that it happens on its own. After all, the teachers have their key performance indicators and responsibilities. So obviously they are bound to focus more on the 75% majority students.”

Conclusion

Both analyses confirmed that RTE students experience discrimination at private schools. The survey results showed that discrimination is practiced in various forms, while the interviews revealed that such practices are more prevalent in English-medium schools, where sociocultural diversity is extremely high. Such discrimination puts students at high risk of loss of self-esteem (Schmitt et al., 2003; Shaukat & Pell, 2015; Sharma and Subramanyam, 2020), poor academic performance (Sharma and Subramanyam, 2020; Creighton, 2007), and other psychological problems (Brown & Tylka, 2011).

The main problem of private schools in terms of compliance is that the government has not been paying the fees for the RTE students; because of this, they have been facing operational problems and delays in staff salary payments. The private schools had agreed, in good faith, to support the government’s vision of providing free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14. While the schools have played their part, the government has failed to keep its promise of paying the fees, implying that the government wants the schools to teach 100 students for the cost of teaching 75, which is also not possible because of restrictions on fees charged by schools put forth by other legislation. For example, the state of Maharashtra enforces a regulation called the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act 2011 (Government of Maharashtra, 2014), which places limits on fees charged to students.

This creates a paradoxical situation. The government has taken the major responsibility of providing free and compulsory education for children between ages 6 and 14. To do so, it has sought the partnership of private schools on the condition that it will pay them the fees for these students since they are private institutions. However, because of a lack of funds, the government has been unable to pay these fees for several years, so the schools refused to cooperate further. In response, the government has threatened to close the schools if they do not comply with the law. The paradox is that because of the issue involving underprivileged students from the 25% quota, the remaining 75% of students might lose the opportunity to learn if the schools are closed. This is the impact of neoliberalism and the failure of the PPP model of inclusive education policy.

Examining the situation from the lens of the social equity theory of education, we found that the intentions of the Indian government are well placed on the principles of fairness and inclusivity (Field et al., 2007; Gonski et al., 2011). However, it does not have the financial resources to fulfill its obligations. In Gonski et al.’s (2011) report submitted to the Australian government titled “Review of Funding for Schooling,” we found that the expert panel had recommended that the government continue to fund socially and economically disadvantaged students in private schools through more simple schemes. However, since the problem in India is that the government does not have the money, how theory will be put into practice remains a big question. We ask a basic question here: is the social equity theory of education applicable only to the government, or is it also applicable to society? We believe that the theory has universal applicability. Hence, along with the government, private schools and parents of privileged students must also play their part in the implementation. Theories and ideologies become a reality through collaborative efforts. Private schools should stop discriminatory practices and realize and accept that they are equally committed to the core values of fairness and inclusivity, which are the two main pillars of the theory of equity in education.

To overcome the financial impasse, the solution would be to pass the burden of the RTE students to the parents of the upper- and middle-class students from the remaining 75%. The fees that should be charged to them should be calculated by dividing the total expenditure for 100 students by 75 students. In other words, each upper- and middle-class student from the 75% should contribute a little bit to the expenditures for the RTE students. This must be done since the government does not have the money to finance the fees for these students. At the same time, underprivileged students should have a right to education. Rightfully, therefore, on the principles of fairness and inclusivity, the majority should help and care for the minority. These principles are often seen in taxation policies where the rich are taxed at a higher rate, and the tax collected is spent for the welfare of the economically weaker population. It is illogical on the part of the government to burden private schools with this responsibility. This is because if they are asked to manage the expenditures for 100 students from income generated from 75, expenses would be limited, which will have repercussions on the quality. Instead, the idea should be to increase the income to 100. Only then will private schools have adequate income to pay their teachers’ salaries, and at least to some extent, discrimination will be reduced. They will not hold grudges as a result of delays in their salaries because of RTE students.

India faces two major challenges: a massive population of school-going children to serve and a scarcity of resources. Against this backdrop, a natural change is seen in the approach to welfarism in terms of education as a public good and the entitlement of basic rights as enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The government is seeking more participation from the private sector, which must do so given the challenges faced by the government. The private sector should not look at education as a “commodity” and try to profit from it and instead genuinely take responsibility for helping the government ensure the efficient and effective delivery of public goods to all those who are entitled to them.

An implication of our study is for the government to implement a change in the formula for calculating the fees for the upper- and middle-class students from the 75%. Another is for private schools to design special training programs to help teachers work with heterogeneous groups of children and practice inclusivity. Most importantly, we suggest that the parents of upper- and middle-class students uphold the principles of social equity theory as theories are implemented through the support and cooperation of all corners of society. Each should make it their responsibility to ensure fairness and inclusivity in education. They must be socially responsible citizens. Urgent action is required to help thousands of RTE students, who are facing denial of admission to private schools.

We invite research into the practical dynamics of the social equity theory of education, especially in situations where financial resources are a major constraint. Realistic solutions for implementation are required; otherwise, the theory would be labeled as another purely normative concept.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Editor, the two anonymous reviewers, and the APER Editorial team for their support in making this work more worthy of publication.

Funding

No external funding was used for this paper.

Data availability

Data set associated with this study has been deposited with a repository and can be accessed from https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/166021/version/V1/view

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflicting/competing interest arising out of this paper.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Ahn DJ, Garg N, Naik AG, Fan J, Wei H, Song BB, Kim KE. Where do I fit in? A perspective on challenges faced by Asian American Medical Students. Health Equity. 2021;5(1):324–328. doi: 10.1089/heq.2020.0158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amiri AK. Challenges faced by schools students: Some concerns in developing countries of Asia (India, Afghanistan, Iran etc.) Researchers' Guild. 2019;2(1):71–81. doi: 10.15503/rg2019.8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arora S. Internal migration for education-challenges faced by young students migrated to Delhi NCR. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development. 2021;5(5):1106–1114. [Google Scholar]
  4. Azra PM. Identify the problems and challenges faced by female students in co-educational system at university level in Sindh. Academia Arena. 2014;6(11):8–11. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beemyn B. Serving the needs of transgender college students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education. 2003;1(1):33–50. doi: 10.1300/J367v01n01_03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown DL, Tylka TL. Racial discrimination and resilience in African American young adults: Examining racial socialization as a moderator. Journal of Black Psychology. 2011;37(3):259–285. doi: 10.1177/2F0095798410390689. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown JD. Likert items and scales of measurement. Statistics. 2011;15(1):10–14. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown SM, McBride G, Collingridge DS. Validation of the Intermountain patient perception of quality (PPQ) survey among survivors of an intensive care unit admission: A retrospective validation study. BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15:155. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0828-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Caldwell, BJ & Spinks, JM 2008, Raising the stakes: From improvement to transformation in the reform of schools, Routledge, London & New York.
  10. Centre for Equity Studies. (2014). India Exclusion Report 2013–14. Retrieved 27 September, 2022 from http://www.indianet.nl/pdf/IndiaExclusionReport2013-2014.pdf
  11. Channar, S. H., Shah, A. A., Ali, N. I., & Brohi, I. A. (2017). Assesment of problems faced by female post graduate students: A case study of Jamshoro city universities. In 2017 4th IEEE international conference on engineering technologies and applied sciences (ICETAS) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. 10.1109/ICETAS.2017.8277854
  12. Chen, Y. (2022). Implication for English language teaching from analysis of the causes of gender discrimination in English learning among college students. In 2021 International Conference on Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2021) (pp. 1055–1060). Atlantis Press. 10.2991/assehr.k.220131.191
  13. Creighton LM. Factors affecting the graduation rates of university students from underrepresented populations. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning. 2007;11:7. [Google Scholar]
  14. D'augelli AR. Lesbian and gay male undergraduates' experiences of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1992;7(3):383–395. doi: 10.1177/2F088626092007003007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dehadray V. Discrimination faced by the socially disadvantaged students with respect to corporal punishment. Contemporary Voice of Dalit. 2019;11(2):210–218. doi: 10.1177/2F2455328X19859660. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dworkin SL. Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012;41:1319–1320. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Espinoza O. Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research. 2007;49(4):343–363. doi: 10.1080/00131880701717198. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Evivie LG. Challenges faced by African international students at a metropolitan research university: A phenomenological case study. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  19. Feagin JR. The continuing significance of racism: Discrimination against Black students in White colleges. Journal of Black Studies. 1992;22(4):546–578. doi: 10.1177/2F002193479202200407. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Field, S, Kuczera, M & Pont, B (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education, Paris: OECD.
  21. Fowler DJ, Brown K. Data-driven decisions: Using equity theory to highlight implications for underserved students. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice. 2018;14(4):18. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gandhi-Kingdon G. (2017). The private schooling phenomenon in India: A review. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved 26 September, 2022 from https://docs.iza.org/dp10612.pdf
  23. Gonski D, Boston K, Greiner K, Lawrence C, Scales B, Tannock P. (2011). Review of Funding for Schooling. Retrieved 1 April, 2022 from https://www.dese.gov.au/download/1307/review-funding-schooling-final-report-december-2011/1280/document/pdf
  24. Government of Maharashtra. (2014). Retrieved 26 March, 2022 from https://lj.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/Acts/Educational%20Institutions%20Act.pdf
  25. Hanassab S. Diversity, international students, and perceived discrimination: Implications for educators and counselors. Journal of Studies in International Education. 2006;10(2):157–172. doi: 10.1177/2F1028315305283051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Huang Y. Transitioning challenges faced by Chinese graduate students. Adult Learning. 2012;23(3):138–147. doi: 10.1177/2F1045159512452861. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Income Tax Department. (2022). Retrieved 25 March, 2022 from https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Tutorials/11.Tax%20free%20incomes%20final.pdf
  28. John, S., Pritchard, I., & Williams, T. (2018). Perceptions of stigma and discrimination faced by male student nurses. Retrieved from https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa44422
  29. Joshi, D. (2021). Maharashtra: Action against private schools boycotting RTE admissions. Retrieved 25 March, 2022 from https://www.educationworld.in/maharashtra-action-against-private-schools-boycotting-rte-admissions/
  30. Kakumanu, V. (2022). How NEP 2020 supplements RTE 2009?. Retrieved 27 September, 2022 from https://www.schoolserv.in/How-NEP-2020-supplements-RTE-2009/#:~:text=RTE%20aims%20to%20provide%20equitable,become%20a%20more%20realizable%20goal
  31. Kamat, S. (2008). Education and social equity with a special focus on scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in elementary education. Center for International Education Faculty Publications. 24. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cie_faculty_pubs/24
  32. Konur O. Teaching disabled students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. 2006;11(3):351–363. doi: 10.1080/13562510600680871. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30(3):607–610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Letsoalo DL, Nel KA, Govender S, Vawda NBM. challenges faced by gay and lesbian students at a semi-rural South African University. Gender & Behaviour. 2020;18(2):15247–15255. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lightstone, A. W. (2008). The “private school with a public purpose”: Exploring “education for social responsibility” at Upper Canada College. York University (Canada).
  36. Losen DJ, Welner KG. Disabling discrimination in our public schools: Comprehensive legal challenges to inappropriate and inadequate special education services for minority children. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 2001;36:407. [Google Scholar]
  37. Matsheka D, Garutsa T. Challenges faced by racial minority students at Justus-Liebig University, Germany and North-West University, South Africa. International Journal of Higher Education. 2022;11(7):13–23. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v11n7p. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. McKown C. Social equity theory and racial-ethnic achievement gaps. Child Development. 2013;84(4):1120–1136. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Melikan, M. S., Shuman, B. S., Files, M. D., Stonnington, M. D., Kraus, M. D., & Kling, M. D. (2020). AMWA IGNITE: A novel program for medical students addressing the unique challenges faced by women in medicine. Sex and Gender Health Education Summit 2020 – Virtual Meeting. 13. Retrieved from https://jdc.jefferson.edu/sexandgenderhealth/13
  40. Menold, N., & Bogner, K. (2016) Design of Rating Scales in Questionnaires (Version 2.0). Working Paper. GESIS. 10.15465/gesis-sg_en_015
  41. Mohalik R., & Sethy, R. (2021). Low attendance of students in Government elementary schools of Jharkhand: A study. Regional Institute of Education. NCERT. Retrieved 27 September, 2022 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350385962_LOW_ATTENDANCE_OF_STUDENTS_IN_GOVERNMENT_ELEMENTARY_SCHOOLS_OF_JHARKHAND_A_STUDY
  42. Moran RF. The elusive nature of discrimination. Stanford Law Review. 2002;55:2365. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ojha AK, Chakravarty D. Beyond corporate social responsibility: A role for corporate India in rural primary education. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review. 2012;1(2):55–63. doi: 10.1177/2F2277975213477265. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Okech, J. B., Imam, Y., & Wamaungo, J. A. (2020). Challenges faced by students with special needs in Universities: Implications on their retention. 1776133432.
  45. Poyrazli S, Lopez MD. An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The Journal of Psychology. 2007;141(3):263–280. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.141.3.263-280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Reskin B. The race discrimination system. Annual Review of Sociology. 2012;38(1):17–35. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145508. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ressa T, Daniels DE, Wells-Jensen S. Time as a hidden curriculum: Qualitative study of challenges faced by students with mobility, speech, and visual disabilities in P-12 settings. International Journal of Educational Research Review. 2021;6(3):250–263. doi: 10.24331/ijere.927574. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. RightToEducation.In. (2013). Right to education. Retrieved 25 March, 2022 from https://righttoeducation.in/know-your-rte/about
  49. Rizvi F, Lingard B. Social equity and the assemblage of values in Australian higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2011;41(1):5–22. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2010.549459. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rosenbloom D. Taking social equity seriously in MPA education. Journal of Public Affairs Education. 2005;11(3):247–252. doi: 10.1080/15236803.2005.12001397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sabale DS. Issues of inclusive education for the underprivileged students in India. Educational Quest. 2017;8:355. doi: 10.5958/2230-7311.2017.00076.9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sanders MG. Overcoming obstacles: Academic achievement as a response to racism and discrimination. Journal of Negro Education. 1997;66:83–93. doi: 10.2307/2967253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sarasvati, N. (2020). How reservation in private schools isn't working for poor children. Retrieved 25 March, 2022 from https://www.indiaspend.com/how-reservation-in-private-schools-isnt-working-for-poor-children/
  54. Schmitt MT, Spears R, Branscombe NR. Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2003;33(1):1–12. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sharma AJ, Subramanyam MA. Psychological responses to reservation-based discrimination: A qualitative study of socially marginalized youth at a premier Indian university. International Journal of Educational Development. 2020;79:102298. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102298. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shaukat S, Pell AW. Personal and social problems faced by women in higher education. FWU Journal of Social Sciences. 2015;9(2):101. [Google Scholar]
  57. Siraj HK, Korrapati NH, Parvathy G, Elsherif YT, Thomas JA, Rashid VJ, Elsherif OT. Changing shift of gender discrimination faced by female medical students in Georgia. International Journal of Progressive Sciences and Technologies. 2021;29(2):621–625. [Google Scholar]
  58. Starovoytova, D., & Namango, S. (2016). Factors affecting cheating-behavior at undergraduate-engineering. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(31), 66–82. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1122521
  59. The Economic Times. (2014). Economic Survey 2014: Revamp mid-day meal, take steps to improve education system. Retrieved 27 September, 2022 from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/economic-survey-2014-revamp-mid-day-meal-take-steps-to-improve-education-system/articleshow/38089226.cms?from=mdr
  60. Thompson MN. Career barriers and coping efficacy among Native American students. Journal of Career Assessment. 2013;21(2):311–325. doi: 10.1177/2F1069072712471501. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Thorat S, Neuman KS. Blocked by caste: Economic discrimination in modern India. Oxford University Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tran, L., Bui, H., & Balakrishnan, V. D. (2020). Forms of racism and discrimination faced by international students. Retrieved from https://cisa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Types-and-forms-of-Racism-and-Discrimination-faced-by-International-Students_CISA-statement.pdf
  63. Usher K, Lindsay D, Miller M, Miller A. Challenges faced by Indigenous nursing students and strategies that aided their progress in the course: A descriptive study. Contemporary Nurse. 2005;19(1–2):17–31. doi: 10.5172/conu.19.1-2.17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Vedhavalli S. A study on problems and challenges faced by female college students in Thoothukudi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 2021;12(10):6870–6872. doi: 10.17762/turcomat.v12i10.5556. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Welply O. ‘I’m not being offensive but…’: Intersecting discourses of discrimination towards Muslim children in school. Race Ethnicity and Education. 2018;21(3):370–389. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2017.1294569. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wolanin, T. R., & Steele, P. (2004). Higher education opportunities for students with disabilities: A primer for policymakers. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10919/87014
  67. World Bank. (2022). School enrollment, primary (% gross) -India | Data. Retrieved 25 March, 2022 from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR?locations=IN
  68. World Health Organization. (2015). [online] Apps.who.int. Retrieved 28 June, 2022 from https://apps.who.int/ethics/nationalcommittees/NEC_full_web.pdf
  69. Yoo HC, Steger MF, Lee RM. Validation of the subtle and blatant racism scale for Asian American college students (SABR-A2) Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2010;16(3):323–334. doi: 10.1037/a0018674. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data set associated with this study has been deposited with a repository and can be accessed from https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/166021/version/V1/view

Articles from Asia Pacific Education Review are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES