In recent days, there has been some debate about the merits of introducing a voucher system for elementary schools. The principle behind this is simple — instead of funding schools, the government works out an appropriate value that should be made available to each child, and provides this to parents in the form of a voucher that can be redeemed in any school of their choice. At first glance, this is a wonderfully simple and attractive system; parents get to choose their children’s school, while schools have to compete to make sure that they receive enough vouchers to stay in operation — this implies that they have to improve their quality of education, since parents will choose the best institutions. The market is thus harnessed to eliminate dysfunctional schools and improve all round educational quality.Voucher systems have been introduced in several countries around the world, including the US, UK, and Chile. A Delhi-based NGO recently took up a pilot project under which selected poor families will be provided vouchers worth Rs 300 per month, redeemable in various private schools around their neighbourhood.However, researchers agree that available data on the voucher system is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about improvement in academics, access or racial integration. In the US, there have been mixed reactions; the Florida State Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the voucher programme for students in the lowest-rated public schools was unconstitutional, as vouchers violated state constitutional provisions requiring a ‘uniform’ system of public schools for all students. A study carried out for the Minnesota Education Association could not establish that availability of choice improves learning levels — for example, in maths, voucher student scores were essentially the same in the first and second year, rose in the third year, and declined significantly during the year that followed. Chile introduced the voucher programme in the 1980s. However, after several years of study, researchers have found that they are unable to point to any significant difference in the achievement levels of children in private (voucher) and municipal schools. More interestingly, they found that lower income parents, even when armed with vouchers and full information about the relative merits and demerits of various schools, were influenced by their own self-perception of ‘not belonging’ when making a school choice. The voucher did not help them overcome their feeling of intimidation by school authorities.The underlying premise of all voucher systems is economic, not social. Parents are viewed as rational consumers, who given complete information and freedom to choose, will necessarily make a rational choice that maximises the return on their expenditure. But this approach does not address situations where there may be constraints, inadequate information or unequal pre-existing social equations.In India, nearly 70 per cent of enrolled children in the 6-14 age group attend government schools, and 60 per cent of these live in rural areas, and a significant proportion are first generation learners. Given the pre-dominant role caste and class plays in governing social behaviour in India, it is not likely that poor parents would feel empowered enough to demand their right to education through vouchers. Would a voucher change the attitude of higher caste teachers towards Dalit students? It is likely that voucher use might also follow traditional power equations.Delhi has been witness to the difficulties in administering a system of 25 per cent reservations in private schools for children from economically backward sections. Just as the mere provision of such reservations is no guarantee that poor children will receive admission to the more ‘exclusive’ schools, the distribution of vouchers will not necessarily lead to more equity in school education. Indeed the final choice of admitting children would remain with the school — between a child whose parent earns Rs 50,000 a year and one whose parent earns Rs 5 lakh a year, any school management is likely to choose the latter unless compelled otherwise by law or regulation.The provision of quality elementary education as a fundamental right is a constitutional obligation of the state. What we need now is greater engagement with this system to make sure that it functions well and delivers efficiently; the solution does not lie in introducing free market relationships in schools.The writer was director, elementary education, in the ministry of HRD, 2001-2006, and now works with the UN. Views are personal
