Opinion Fee caps in private schools: Not the cure we need
The affordability of education has been a concern since Independence. The Kothari Commission recommended free and compulsory school education up to age 14. Similarly, the National Policy on Education, 1986, also focused on free and compulsory education, while the Programme of Action, 1992, addressed the issue of affordability and accessibility of education. The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) emphasised transparency, accountability, and encouraged private philanthropic efforts in school education. The increasing acceptance of the presence of private players in school education is also visible from the shifting position in the policy documents over the last three decades. The latest Delhi Bill, applicable to 1,677 aided and unaided schools, however, intervenes in the domain of private schools to restrain any exorbitant hike in fees.
This move may have adverse outcomes. In a mixed school system where both government and private players should compete freely, any arbitrary control on the functioning of the private sector would disturb the mechanism. Government and private schools function on different principles. The fee in private schools is based on the principles of supply and demand. Any arbitrary control by the government would not address the concern of equity. One must understand the logic of rising prices. Fees don't only just focus on profit; it is the source of teachers' salaries, quality infrastructure and other expenses.
There is no doubt that private schools, particularly the unaided ones, are expensive. My analysis based on the national sample survey data on social consumption of education (2017-18) shows that the average household expenditure per student in an academic year is Rs 21,683 at the elementary level (I-VIII) and Rs 32,003 at secondary and higher secondary level (IX-XII) in Delhi. It is remarkably higher than the all-India average, which is Rs 6,319 and Rs 11,026 at elementary and secondary and higher secondary levels, respectively. This difference can be attributed to the dominance of elite schools in Delhi.
Private unaided schools compete with the low-cost private and government schools over quality. The National Achievement Survey (2021) shows that at secondary and higher secondary levels, students in private schools perform better in languages, Mathematics, Social Sciences and the Sciences than the students of government schools. Any control on fees without taking into consideration the operational costs of private schools may push them to compromise on crucial quality indicators such as pupil-teacher ratio and infrastructure.
On the other hand, government schools function on the principles of welfare. It is the last resort for those who cannot afford an expensive private school. Notably, the enrolment in government schools is much higher than private schools in Delhi. My analysis from the UDISE, 2023-24 data shows government schools comprise 57.1 per cent of the total enrolment, while the corresponding shares for government-aided private and unaided/self-financed schools are 3.1 per cent and 39.8 per cent, respectively.
Between 2015-16 to 2021-22, the enrolment in private schools in Delhi has dropped from 43.1 per cent to 38.8 per cent, while the share of private schools among the total number of schools has remained roughly the same. The bulk of private schools are unaided. This reduction in enrolment in private schools might be attributed to the reforms in government schools. The average fee in government schools is also far lower than in private schools.
The most pressing challenge for government schools and low-cost private schools is to impart quality education at a low cost. Improving the learning outcomes in these schools, along with better infrastructure, would be an important step in this direction. Facilitating access to online/digital resources may also contribute to improving the quality of education. Against this backdrop, the role of the government concerning the private sector should be that of facilitator. A free competition between the government and private schools over quality may be more beneficial than controlling the functioning of the private schools.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
A history of highs and lows in India-US ties
A history of highs and lows in India-US ties Rudroneel Ghosh TNN Updated: Aug 9, 2025, 16:05 IST IST Trump has taken a wrecking ball to India-US ties. But India has been there, or sort of there, before. There have been other lows. Just as there have been some highs. Here's a quick look Warm, Then Cold US did view India favourably around the time it achieved Independence. In 1949, Nehru toured US and met Truman. But then, Nehru officially declared neutrality in the Cold War , and assumed leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement . What followed was a behind-the-scenes strategic tussle between US and Soviet Union for influence in India.
News18
10 hours ago
- News18
Phansi Ghar Row In Delhi Assembly Shows Distortion Of History For Political Gains
As custodians of public history, governments must tread carefully, balancing the emotional power of national memory with the ethical responsibility of truth-telling The 'Phansi Ghar' controversy, along with debate on the floor of Delhi Assembly, has alleged that the ousted Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government led by Arvind Kejriwal created a false history about the heritage Old Secretariat building, saying that it housed hanging gallows and many prominent freedom fighters were hanged there. This has been disputed by the present Speaker Vijender Gupta and chief minister Rekha Gupta, who claim that a false impression was created about the two-storeyed tiffin room being a hanging house. This contradiction has exposed how history can become a tool of political symbolism. For the AAP, a party that has tried to project itself as a custodian of revolutionary and anti-colonial legacies, associating the Old Secretariat with the martyrdom of freedom fighters served a powerful emotional and nationalist description of the building. Such accounts bolster public sentiment, especially among youth and marginalised communities who draw inspiration from tales of resistance. In declaring the site as a 'Phansi Ghar', the AAP government well attempted to transform a heritage administrative structure into a hallowed space of sacrifice and patriotic pride. Such attempts risk distorting historical facts for political gains. History, which is always open to reinterpretation and enveloped meanings, must be grounded in verifiable facts. Manufacturing heritage through anecdotal evidence or politically convenient legends can undermine scholarly rigour and lead to the path of myth-making. The BJP government's rebuttal rests on the principle that history must be protected from partisan reinterpretations, especially when it relates to sensitive issues like freedom struggle and colonial oppression. The issue also reveals the broader politics around public memory in contemporary India. In a postcolonial nation where symbols of resistance, martyrdom, and heritage carry deep emotional weight, competing political parties often seek to appropriate historical icons and sites to reinforce their ideological identity. Be it renaming streets, erecting statues, or redefining the purpose of a building, the past is often reimagined to suit the present political narrative. Critics of Utpal Kumar—author of Eminent Distorians: Twists and Truths in Bharat's History—claim that his assessment of prominent historians, particularly those aligned with the Marxist or Nehruvian schools, reflects an agenda to delegitimise the established historiography post-Independence, which had focused on secular, class-based, and colonial critiques of Indian society. Now, the 'Phansi Ghar' controversy, in a way, upholds Kumar's justification of history being distorted to suit agenda. The 'Phansi Ghar' debate, therefore, goes beyond the specifics of the Old Secretariat. It highlights the challenges of public history as to how historical narratives are constructed, disseminated, and contested in the public domain. With no authoritative body evaluate historical claims, political regimes often enjoy the liberty to promote their version of the past. This can be in short term politically empowering but dangerous in long term. In this context, Kumar's book succeeds in triggering a much-needed conversation on historical objectivity and diversity of viewpoints, the polarised responses highlight the need for academic engagement over ideological battles. Rewriting history is not essentially challenging unless it replaces evidence with ideology. In the same vein, the 'Phansi Ghar' controversy is illustrative of how deeply history and politics are intertwined in India. It is a reminder that heritage is not just about bricks and mortar but about the stories we choose to tell and also believe about ourselves. As custodians of public history, governments must tread carefully, balancing the emotional power of national memory with the ethical responsibility of truth-telling. The Old Secretariat's future as a heritage site now depends not on rhetoric but on rigorous historical engagement. What this episode underlines is the urgent need for historical accuracy and responsible stewardship of public memory. If the AAP government had genuine evidence or oral histories to support their claim, they should have subjected it to academic scrutiny before institutionalising it. Likewise, the BJP-led Delhi government must avoid merely opposing AAP's narrative for political point-scoring and instead promote research and documentation that clarifies the site's actual legacy. Which so far has not been forthcoming! The writer is author and president, Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : aam aadmi party BJP freedom fighters Rekha Gupta view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Indian Express
Independence Day Special: Filmmaker and animator Suresh Eriyat on how processions have been the theatre where freedom is performed
I asked my 95-year-old father how it was when India won its freedom on August 15, 1947. He was 17 years old then. But strangely, when I asked him, he didn't have much to say. That caught me off guard. My father is not the sort who runs out of stories. He usually has plenty — anecdotes rich with colour, exaggerated just enough to make you smile and a memory for details that rivals fiction. But this time, he just looked at me, as though I had asked him about someone else's life. He wanted me to give him clues. 'What do you want to know?' he asked, as though freedom itself had become too abstract to remember. Then I recalled something: he always loved processions. Any kind. Political rallies, religious parades, protest marches, temple utsavams, funeral cortèges — you name it. He would always take me by the hand and run to the gate when we heard distant drums or the sound of marching feet. The crowd, the rhythm, the collective emotion — he was an audience to them all, regardless of what was being said or sung. He simply loved the spirit of movement. And I think that's how he experienced Independence, too — not in that exact moment of political handover or Nehru's speech, but in the after-sounds, the processions that followed. Not just the ones celebrating freedom, but all the ones that came after — the constant streaming of people onto streets, asserting something, asking for something, mourning, rejoicing, living. Because let's face it — freedom doesn't change anything overnight. Especially when you are 17, and your world hasn't quite shifted yet. There's no dramatic flash of lightning or tearful applause. For many, it might have been a day like any other. And that might explain the blankness in my father's recollection. But, perhaps, it wasn't really blank. Perhaps it was something else — something unspoken and slow. A deep feeling without a dramatic vocabulary. My father grew up without a father himself. His elder brothers were kind but they weren't storytellers. They didn't pass down memories of the freedom struggle or political awareness in any structured way. And in a society where most stories of the freedom movement were framed around the participation of men, perhaps, he didn't know what role he was expected to have. That kind of silence sits heavy in a memory. But Kerala was one of those places, I've heard, where everyone participated — men, women, students, workers. It wasn't the kind of movement where a few did all the heavy lifting. And so, I like to believe, even if he wasn't marching, he was watching. Watching everyone walk. Watching change go by. That watchfulness stayed with him. He never missed a demonstration. Even in later years, I remember him reading out loud the slogans from placards held by striking unions or humming along with temple chenda melams as they passed our house. I used to shout 'Ingulab Sindabad!' (quite a few years later I realised it was 'Inquilab Zindabad') and run around our home with the same spirit of the demonstrators — completely oblivious to what it meant. I think processions, for him, and later for me, became the theatre where freedom was performed. Where he could witness something alive. Freedom, when it finally arrived, wasn't a firecracker burst. It was a slow, noisy, moving, dancing, grieving, singing thing. And I often wonder if, in those processions, he didn't also see other things. Spirits, maybe. Ghosts. His stories were always full of them. Myths that belonged to our land — yakshis, gandharvas, bhoothams. I have a theory. When the British brought rationality and science into our systems, they also quietly erased a lot of our own myth-worlds. Superstitions, they called them. And with them, a whole ecosystem of spirits and inherited fears and fascinations disappeared from public discourse. But maybe, with freedom, some of them came back. Not to haunt, but to be part of us again. Maybe that's what he saw in the processions. Not just people but the myths we weren't afraid to carry anymore. A freedom not just for the body but for imagination. For the ghosts, too. And that's the drawing I want to make for August 15 this year. My father and I watching a procession go by. In it, people of every kind. The living. The long-gone. Today, public processions and demonstrations feel fewer, often restricted or reshaped. The freedom to walk together — to protest, to celebrate, to simply be in movement — has been trimmed down. Except for the occasional baraat, the religious parade or a funeral passing, the street feels quieter now. But maybe that's why we remember. Maybe that's why the image of my father at the gate still stays with me. Because those processions weren't just about the moment, they were reminders of possibility. Of togetherness. Of voices gathering into something greater. And perhaps that spirit hasn't vanished. Perhaps it's just waiting, like a distant drumbeat. For us to notice it again. To move again. Because freedom, like a procession, finds its way back. Suresh Eriyat is a filmmaker and animator
