Introduction
Educational
inequality in India involves more than social class and gender. Backward caste
groups such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward
classes (groups that are constitutionally recognized for certain preferential
policies) lag behind the higher castes with respect to both enrolment and
completion at each educational transition stage. Moreover, within these
backward communities, women suffer an additional disadvantage (Sengupta and
Guha, 2002; Agrawal and Aggarwal, 1994; Acharya, 1994; Dreze and Sen, 1995;
Vaid, 2004). Viewed in this background it may be argued that equality is a
stronger expression of equity and similarly equality of opportunity is more
difficult than equitable distribution. With the prevailing social syndrome of
inequality in various facets of life, the distribution between
"haves" and "have nots" is becoming more glaring.
In
such a situation giving equal opportunity will imply giving more to those who
already have it and giving less to those who do not have it and, therefore,
equality to all is a concept which is not conceivable because the category of
"all" itself is not a homogeneous one. It consists of heterogeneous
groups having disparate levels of socio-economic development. Therefore, equality
is unjust when it is perceived to be distributed in the groups which themselves
are unequal. It implies that equal distribution among unequal will lead to
perpetuation of inequality. "Growth with equity" is now considered
one of the major objectives of planning, including educational planning. It may
be noted that in the Indian context there is no contradiction between the
demands for equity and growth. Equity without growth is a stagnant cesspool
wherein only misery, ignorance, obscurantism and superstition can be equitably
distributed. Growth without equity leads to the accentuation of the structural
disequilibrium, which constrains growth itself. The social concern for the two
can be handled together, sustaining each other and sustained by each other.
Equity
in Education
A
primary and explicitly stated objective of education policy of a welfare state
must be to ensure equality of opportunities by way of securing that all
citizens have access to the resources necessary. The countries of the third
world are passing through a serious dilemma resulting from the inherent social
contradictions between the principle of equality and the principle of equity.
This calls for a distinction between equity and equality. Equality means that
every person would receive same treatment irrespective of status, caste, creed,
etc. Equity means fairness or "recourse to principle of justice",
which implies that a policy of protective discrimination has to be adopted if
this is deemed fair or just. While equality has a quantitative meaning, equity
is a qualitative concept. Education policy need not necessarily aim at
achieving identical results for all, but rather aim at equivalent outcomes. It
assumes a strong emphasis on identical treatment of all students to greater
individual autonomy and diversity. The aim of equity should be all children
will complete the equivalent of higher secondary school and that all be given
the opportunity to pursue higher studies if they desire.
Obstacles
to Equity
Whether
we like it or not, today education has become a marketable commodity. The
quality of this commodity in general depends upon the cost of it. There is a
plethora of schools catering to the students with varying paying capacity.
Normally the Government schools are for poor people, Government aided ones are
for middle classes and the unaided are for the rich and super rich population.
These categories of schools in general sequentially offer better quality. Thus
there is a great disparity of educational achievements between good public
schools and government run institutions in rural and metropolitan areas. One
finds its expression in large-scale teacher absenteeism in government schools.
Another issue is that students do not inherit only economic status from their
parents they inherit social divides like cast, religion, gender, level of
urbanization and the customs and biases based upon all these divides as well.
Students coming from rural background, lower casts, belonging to minority
religions and of feminine gender are a disadvantaged lot.
Conclusion
Development
and empowerment of socially disadvantaged groups a commitment enshrined in the
Constitution, and education is the most effective instrument of social
empowerment. Schemes for the educational uplift of the SCs and STs have borne
fruit but still the gap between the general population and SCs and STs are at
unacceptable levels. Some minorities have fallen far behind the national
average in education. It will be necessary to go to the root of the problem and
examine the reasons for the decline so that remedial measures can be taken in
future. Today, the thin line separating privatisation and commercialisation is
getting blurred and merit alone does not remain the only criteria for moving
upwards in education. There is a visible loss of credibility of existing
systems of imparting education in schools and also in institutions of higher
learning. On one hand, we are short of basic infrastructures and on the other
hand, optimum utilization of existing infrastructures has not been ensured.
Countercurrents.org
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें