Law and reality: Deep cracks that are hard to reconcile

For children aged 6 to 14, the Right to Education Act, 2009 says a migrant worker's child cannot be refused admission because it is sought late in the year (s.15). A child who never enrolled or dropped out joins an age-appropriate class with a right to special training (s.4). A late transfer certificate or missing age proof is not a lawful reason to refuse admission (ss.5(3), 14(2)).

Section 14 (2) states that no child can be denied admission for lack of age proof.

Despite the legal guard rails that exist, ground realities are far from the vision of this progressive law. We highlight here just a few disconnects that we encounter every day.

The Aadhar card continues to be a barrier for many children who don’t have birth certificates and Aadhar cards. Admissions are at stake for such children and often excluded from participating in the school.

The law talks about entry of a migrant child into an age-appropriate classroom. Which is easier said than done. Learning gaps are tremendous and this child is unable to thrive in a classroom where nothing makes sense to them as they haven’t learnt the basics. In that case, the law also alludes to a ‘special training’ which has never got the recognition due to it in all these years. At various times, the Government has run weak, ineffective programs like the 6 month “tent schools” that purportedly worked towards bringing the child up to speed in 6 months! But we know from experience that the project of learning recovery for the older child is not a snap task that can be achieved in 6 months! It requires planning, a design that works and plenty of work in the socio-emotional realm for the adolescent to discover meaning in schooling.

The knotty issue of student: teacher ratio needs scrutiny as well. The law specifies a 1: 30 ratio.

A school can meet the prescribed ratio and still fail to provide children with the individual attention and quality of teaching they need. The ratio is an important minimum staffing standard, but it is not a complete measure of classroom learning conditions.

Take the example of a school we worked in on Sarjapur Road for 10 years. When we started work with it, it had 30 children and one teacher who was also the HM and managed the show single handedly (what is called ‘a single teacher school’). Technically – a box ticked as per the law.

But the 30 was diverse – across Grades 1-5. Which means the teacher had to teach children aged 6-12 years – with different academic and developmental needs - at one go. Not rocket science to understand that this is almost an impossible feat. Mere numbers don’t address the true learning needs – age wise and levels wise. What it requires is an understanding of how learning works and diving into the details of what happens in classrooms.

It is this teacher shortage that has led to us working in nine schools in the area in Grades 1-2-3., in the last 10 years.

We dream of a day when implementation speaks to law and policy. When the two tango in unison for the good of the child!