Learn the lesson

Early proof is already available that current innovations in primary education are not going to work. The Ganguly panel had recently weighted criteria with the laudable intent of making primary schools more accessible. Instead, as a case study in this newspaper on Wednesday shows, the result has been absolutely the opposite. A school in Delhi shared its data for new admissions, which show that each and every child who has gained entry either had an alumnus parent or a sibling already enrolled there. So much for creating diversity.

The first instinct would be to quibble with the criteria chosen by the panel. That would be to miss the wood for the trees. The point is that setting criteria is a bad idea in the first place. The large point that emerges from this Delhi case is that demand greatly outstrips supply. For a total of 33 seats available, there were 5,000 applicants. This, at the primary stage! For children, whose parents are ready to pay the fee demanded. In a logical world, schools should be mushrooming, they should be making a pitch, to grab these students. Existing schools should be viewing it as an annual struggle to ensure they remain in demand. All would, if seats matched demand, be making their fee structure more competitive to get the best students. They would be offering the possibility of scholarships to get the merit and diversity that would lure more students. Instead, current interventions are simply prolonging a monopoly.

These columns have recommended issuance of education vouchers to empower unprivileged students. In a situation of plenty, they would be the buyers. This is not to argue against regulation. An independent regulatory authority is critical to maintaining standards through accreditation. It is also not to argue against affirmative action. The Knowledge Commission8217;s deprivation index must, for instance, be instituted. But if each seat on offer, as the Delhi case shows, is to be weighted, it would only result in averting even a semblance of diversity and social good. The point is to encourage competition amongst schools 8212; and colleges. And they would only compete if they were not so confident that they hold scarce goods.