Backpage

THE HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal’s, ambitious scheme to set up 6000 new schools, 2500 of them through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), for providing high quality education to about 40 lakh children, of which 25 lakh would be from socially and economically disadvantaged categories, seems to have run into rough weather. A large number of educationists and civil society activists have decried this proposal as ‘conceptually flawed, a smokescreen for privatization and an abdication by the state of its responsibility.’ Of particular concern is what is perceived as a sub-rosa effort to introduce a profit motive in what otherwise has been seen as a social, public good activity.

Unfortunately, far too much of the debate on PPP is ideologically driven. Hardly surprising because the notion of PPP remains insufficiently problematized, leading to a blurring between different kinds of private entities. Are the private parties corporate, for profit entities, or are they registered non-profits? Even in the latter case, particularly in the provisioning of public goods, we need to make a distinction between different kinds of non-profits – trusts, societies, cooperatives, religious foundations – each of which have played an important role in education, as indeed have corporates. No wonder many believe that the very idea of PPP involves public resources (land/grants/subsidies) being placed under private control/management for subserving private ends.

On the other hand, we far too easily assume an equivalence between public/social and government, as if government controlled and run institutions necessarily serve public ends or that non-state entities are ipso-facto incapable or non-desirous of doing so. Evidently, we tend to forget our own histories in private schools, that many of these schools are run not for profit but in the spirit of service and have consciously reached out to students from an underprivileged strata. Not recognizing this rich history, as also the fear of ‘potential misuse’, often results in PPP arrangements reflective of a mentality of control, a regime design hemmed in by too many rules and restrictions, a classic situation of being over-ruled but under-governed.

In brief, our debates are infused with distrust. This, in a situation when we should be actively seeking the participation and contribution of a variety of social actors in expanding the availability of quality education, is a clear loss of opportunity. Yet, even as radical critics seem amenable, albeit reluctantly, to the involvement of private parties in the provisioning of non-core activities (buildings, textbooks, computers and so on), they seem chary about proposals to hand over control and responsibility for running the school to the non-government sector, particularly if such ventures involve public support. It is a moot point as to why any private entity would be enthusiastic about participating in such an arrangement, more so since its motives are suspect.

There is today a widely held perception about the indifferent quality of much, not all, of our public provisioning of education. Our inability to meaningfully reform public schools, despite numerous expert recommendations, has resulted in many students and teachers – despite low fees, mid-day meals, free textbooks and the like – deserting the public school system in favour of private schooling. Merely reiterating that schooling is the constitutional responsibility of the state, or that once we ensure a larger infusion of funds, improvement in teacher-student ratios, teacher training, curricular reforms, and so on, the situation will improve, is hardly convincing. After all, if the public system was performing well, why would anyone move to the private domain? Thus, to merely argue that involvement of private parties is per se illegitimate, is of little help.

It is undeniable that PPP models, which involve a contractual relationship between the government and selected private party, face a legal conundrum. Should the government, as the entity responsible for designing rules, laws and norms, itself become one of the parties in a contractual relationship? What if the legislature, in response to changed conditions, decides to alter the terms of contract midway? Is this fair to the other party? Or, is it that the law of contract supersedes legislative rights? None of this is clear.

Meanwhile governments, both state and central, need to take a fresh look at the regulatory regimes governing private sector participation in education and move away from a framework of stifling and punitive control to become more enabling and encouraging. At least then those with the interest, skill, orientation and resources can, with greater enthusiasm, participate in a much needed social venture. Rather than push through what is still an insufficiently thought through scheme, the HRD minister would do well focus on setting his own house in order.

Harsh Sethi