Nursery Admissions in Delhi have become a nightmare for many parents in Delhi. And to their kids as well. I never attended nursery school. There were few in Bilaspur when I was that age. And moreover, I don't think I needed it. Mom was always around to take care of me, and impart preliminary fundas to me before joining KinderGarten. Nowadays, nurseries and even pre-nurseries and play-homes have become fashion. There are reasons for that of course. They make lives convenient for parents. And as far as kids are concerned, it is hard to understand what kids think at that age. A survey to find out what some of the adults think about their experience of attending play-homes, pre-nurseries and nurseries in their childhood would be interesting.
To stop the interviewing of parents and kids by some of the private nurseries in Delhi, the Delhi High Court had set up a panel, called the the Ganguly Panel, after Mr. Ashok Ganguly, the Chairman of CBSE. The purpose of the panel was to come up with a methodology which the schools must follow to select the right kids from all the applicants. A methodology that is fair and just and at the same time serves the interests of both schools and parents.
The Ganguly Panel came up with a 100-point Formula and the Delhi High Court passed a Verdict that the admissions process be conducted in accordance with the Ganguly Panel recommendations. And the Supreme Court later upheld the HC verdict. However, there is heavy resentment from all the Schools in Delhi. They are challenging the 100-pt criteria as an attempt to take away the autonomy of private schools. And the parents are not happy either. The recommendations seem to have failed big time.
Let's take a look at the 100-pt Formula. The following are its main points
- No interviews of children and parents
- Common admission calendar for all schools
Dec 1-20: Sale of admission forms.
Jan 31: Submission of admission forms.
Feb 1-20: Deadline for schools to release the first lists of selected kids.
Feb 26: Payment of fees and completion of admission formalities.
Feb 26: Last date for releasing the 2nd list.
Apr 1: Classes Start.
- Points based on the distance(d km) between the kid's residence and school:
0 <= d <= 3 : 20 Points
3 <= d <= 10: 8 + 12x(10-d)/7 Points
d > 10: 0 Points
- 20 points if kid has any sibling in the same school.
- Points based on parental qualification:
max 10 points per parent (so 20 Points for both combined).
The rule is:
Post Graduation and beyond - 10 Points
Graduation - 8 Points
Sr. Secondary - 6 Points
Class X - 4 Points
Below Class X - 0
- 5 points if the kid is a girl.
- 5 points for kids with special needs.
- 5 points per parent who's an alumnus.
- 20 points, the school can award according to their requirements which have to be made public through prior advertisement.
That makes it 100 points.
- In case there’s a tie, draw of lots has been recommended as the way out.
It took me a good amount of time to understand the above 100-point-system. No wonder most schools condemn it as too complicated to follow. Not only does it look very complicated, but it also triggers a feeling, at least in me, that it does not solve the actual problem in any way. And some of the points-criteria seem illogical and non-sensical.
For example, there are 20 points at stake based on how far one stays from the school where he/she wants to apply. Clearly, there's an underlying assumption that there is a uniform distribution of "private" schools all over Delhi, which is inconceivable in such a city. A 'private' school like any other business needs a considerable level of investment and the motive is very much to earn profits, besides educating kids. The concentration of schools in various parts of the city depends on a lot of factors. Cost and availability of land, other resources, suitability of the area for operating a school, proximity to residential areas, etc. And private schools have a better concentration in posh localities, where they can hope for better profits. Quite a lot of them operate at all levels - Nursery, KinderGarten, Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary. That's the reason why talking of siblings in the same school seems to make sense. That's the reason there is a mad rush to get the kids into those nursery schools. Once you have u'r kid in, you don't have to worry for a long time. And that's why the schools are concerned as well. A schools reputation rests on its results. Therefore taking in the right kids at nursery level becomes very crucial.
Distance is not a very big issue for rich people. They'd rather go for a reputed school, known for quality education...even if it is a little far. Similarly, at the other extreme is a poor guy who on the one hand will never bother about nurseries, and on the other, will always try to find a school that costs the least. Many just don't bother to get their kids educated. That case is an extreme beyond all extremes.
There are 20 points for parents' education...10 points per parent. Now this really sets in a vicious circle - penalizing students if the parents are not adequately educated. The idea behind this may be that if the parents are well-educated, they can teach the kids better at home, though I don't find this fully convincing. And now with government freeing the kids of school-bags, homeworks and exams, the kids hardly have any studying to do at home. And beyond primary school, most kids study on their own or go to tuitions anyway. Parents' role is just to motivate, and keep a watch, which the less educated parent can do as well. I even feel that a less educated parent will be more careful and concerned about proper education of his/her child because he understands what one loses when he/she does not have those degrees. Now additionally, he/she has some points also to lose. That's sad.
Some of those weightages are too high. Probably the Ganguly Panel was too obsessed with the number 100 and were too hasty to find enough variables to hold some points. For example, one fifth of u'r chances of admission depend on whether you have a sibling in that school. And the panel has suggested the schools to give more weightages to single parents in the 20 points that the schools are free to set their criteria for. May be this is because single parents will lose a lot of points because of not having an educated spouse, 2nd child, and if not alumni.
Let's understand what's the problem that the High Court tried to address and what's the real problem that is breaking the system down. The High Court saw the superficial problem of interviewing of parents and kids by schools so as to decide whether to allow admissions of the kids or not. In fact a petition by a concerned and responsible citizen drew the attention of the Judiciary to this mal-practice. The problem was genuine indeed. The Judiciary needed just to put an end to this mal-practice. It did that, but it also went ahead and did a lot more.
Private institutions are driven by market forces. And the beauty of the market is that it is ruthless in punishing a poor-quality product, and it appropriately rewards the good ones. One cannot make rules out of ethical practices and responsibilites, which themselves are not always rigid. The HC made it mandatory for the schools to follow the recommendations of the Ganguly Panel and the SC upheld its decision. It was ok to the extent of banning the interviews. But beyond that, the Licence-Raj mindset crept in.
The panel justifies the recommendations by saying that they will lead to more responsible behavior by parents and schools towards the kids and will avoid discrimination. But it is rather leading to more serious problems and a lot of inefficiencies. For example, people now come with fake documents of residence etc. How will a school ensure the correctness of such information. All this is unnecessary head-ache for a school. Following the rules, and not breaking them, is supposed to make life easy.
What the Ganguly Panel should really be doing is to try to understand the basic problem of the demand exceeding the supply of seats in the schools...why are there not enough schools set up to ensure that all the kids get admissions in good Schools. Its recommendations should rather be addressed to the gorvernment to create suitable conditions such that more and more private players are encouraged to start new schools and there is healthy competetion. Clearly there is a huge demand. And supply has to come spontaneously, if someone does not create obstructions. Sadly our governments do exactly that in many situations. What they should be doing instead, is to intervene just to the extent that they have to and in the way they are expected to, and to concentrate on more serious and basic issues; not to show its competency in percentages and percentage-points. (Ever written CAT :P) And end up giving stupid rules that are hardly applicable to things which require judgement and not just plain numbers, which even don't cover all aspects of the admission criteria, and make assumptions, some of which are silly. It's like concentrating one one big number and ignoring hundreds of others just because they are small fractions, though anyone can see that all those fractions if added together result in a number which is a million times bigger than the big number you went ahead with.
What the government should rather be doing is to set up schools for the poor and the needy. Not to come up with and impose on everyone such 100-point models, which are no better than the already existing ones. It should grant autonomy to the schools to come up with innovative ways to improve situations. Bans on interviews do make sense. It's all analogous to the soccer game. There are lines to demarcate the boundary. There are rules of the game, which the referee has to take care by watching that everyone follows. And within that framework, the players are free to coordinate, find their ways, and take the ball to the goal. If some player breaks the rules, the referee has the right to warn him multiple times, ask him to leave the ground...but if the referee tells the players how the ball is to be kicked, who should kick it, when it should be kicked, how often, and how hard, how many goals should be scored by each team, and each player, claiming that he's trying to ensure that the spectators get the maximum pleasure...it's not just ridiculous, it's no more a game. No pleasure playing it. And watching it is more pain than entertainment. The duty of the referee is to ensure a free and fair playground where each team can put its best effort and try to win the game. The spectators are entertained in the process. They pay for it. The players enjoy playing the game. And they earn from it. Everybody wins!
To stop the interviewing of parents and kids by some of the private nurseries in Delhi, the Delhi High Court had set up a panel, called the the Ganguly Panel, after Mr. Ashok Ganguly, the Chairman of CBSE. The purpose of the panel was to come up with a methodology which the schools must follow to select the right kids from all the applicants. A methodology that is fair and just and at the same time serves the interests of both schools and parents.
The Ganguly Panel came up with a 100-point Formula and the Delhi High Court passed a Verdict that the admissions process be conducted in accordance with the Ganguly Panel recommendations. And the Supreme Court later upheld the HC verdict. However, there is heavy resentment from all the Schools in Delhi. They are challenging the 100-pt criteria as an attempt to take away the autonomy of private schools. And the parents are not happy either. The recommendations seem to have failed big time.
Let's take a look at the 100-pt Formula. The following are its main points
- No interviews of children and parents
- Common admission calendar for all schools
Dec 1-20: Sale of admission forms.
Jan 31: Submission of admission forms.
Feb 1-20: Deadline for schools to release the first lists of selected kids.
Feb 26: Payment of fees and completion of admission formalities.
Feb 26: Last date for releasing the 2nd list.
Apr 1: Classes Start.
- Points based on the distance(d km) between the kid's residence and school:
0 <= d <= 3 : 20 Points
3 <= d <= 10: 8 + 12x(10-d)/7 Points
d > 10: 0 Points
- 20 points if kid has any sibling in the same school.
- Points based on parental qualification:
max 10 points per parent (so 20 Points for both combined).
The rule is:
Post Graduation and beyond - 10 Points
Graduation - 8 Points
Sr. Secondary - 6 Points
Class X - 4 Points
Below Class X - 0
- 5 points if the kid is a girl.
- 5 points for kids with special needs.
- 5 points per parent who's an alumnus.
- 20 points, the school can award according to their requirements which have to be made public through prior advertisement.
That makes it 100 points.
- In case there’s a tie, draw of lots has been recommended as the way out.
It took me a good amount of time to understand the above 100-point-system. No wonder most schools condemn it as too complicated to follow. Not only does it look very complicated, but it also triggers a feeling, at least in me, that it does not solve the actual problem in any way. And some of the points-criteria seem illogical and non-sensical.
For example, there are 20 points at stake based on how far one stays from the school where he/she wants to apply. Clearly, there's an underlying assumption that there is a uniform distribution of "private" schools all over Delhi, which is inconceivable in such a city. A 'private' school like any other business needs a considerable level of investment and the motive is very much to earn profits, besides educating kids. The concentration of schools in various parts of the city depends on a lot of factors. Cost and availability of land, other resources, suitability of the area for operating a school, proximity to residential areas, etc. And private schools have a better concentration in posh localities, where they can hope for better profits. Quite a lot of them operate at all levels - Nursery, KinderGarten, Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary. That's the reason why talking of siblings in the same school seems to make sense. That's the reason there is a mad rush to get the kids into those nursery schools. Once you have u'r kid in, you don't have to worry for a long time. And that's why the schools are concerned as well. A schools reputation rests on its results. Therefore taking in the right kids at nursery level becomes very crucial.
Distance is not a very big issue for rich people. They'd rather go for a reputed school, known for quality education...even if it is a little far. Similarly, at the other extreme is a poor guy who on the one hand will never bother about nurseries, and on the other, will always try to find a school that costs the least. Many just don't bother to get their kids educated. That case is an extreme beyond all extremes.
There are 20 points for parents' education...10 points per parent. Now this really sets in a vicious circle - penalizing students if the parents are not adequately educated. The idea behind this may be that if the parents are well-educated, they can teach the kids better at home, though I don't find this fully convincing. And now with government freeing the kids of school-bags, homeworks and exams, the kids hardly have any studying to do at home. And beyond primary school, most kids study on their own or go to tuitions anyway. Parents' role is just to motivate, and keep a watch, which the less educated parent can do as well. I even feel that a less educated parent will be more careful and concerned about proper education of his/her child because he understands what one loses when he/she does not have those degrees. Now additionally, he/she has some points also to lose. That's sad.
Some of those weightages are too high. Probably the Ganguly Panel was too obsessed with the number 100 and were too hasty to find enough variables to hold some points. For example, one fifth of u'r chances of admission depend on whether you have a sibling in that school. And the panel has suggested the schools to give more weightages to single parents in the 20 points that the schools are free to set their criteria for. May be this is because single parents will lose a lot of points because of not having an educated spouse, 2nd child, and if not alumni.
Let's understand what's the problem that the High Court tried to address and what's the real problem that is breaking the system down. The High Court saw the superficial problem of interviewing of parents and kids by schools so as to decide whether to allow admissions of the kids or not. In fact a petition by a concerned and responsible citizen drew the attention of the Judiciary to this mal-practice. The problem was genuine indeed. The Judiciary needed just to put an end to this mal-practice. It did that, but it also went ahead and did a lot more.
Private institutions are driven by market forces. And the beauty of the market is that it is ruthless in punishing a poor-quality product, and it appropriately rewards the good ones. One cannot make rules out of ethical practices and responsibilites, which themselves are not always rigid. The HC made it mandatory for the schools to follow the recommendations of the Ganguly Panel and the SC upheld its decision. It was ok to the extent of banning the interviews. But beyond that, the Licence-Raj mindset crept in.
The panel justifies the recommendations by saying that they will lead to more responsible behavior by parents and schools towards the kids and will avoid discrimination. But it is rather leading to more serious problems and a lot of inefficiencies. For example, people now come with fake documents of residence etc. How will a school ensure the correctness of such information. All this is unnecessary head-ache for a school. Following the rules, and not breaking them, is supposed to make life easy.
What the Ganguly Panel should really be doing is to try to understand the basic problem of the demand exceeding the supply of seats in the schools...why are there not enough schools set up to ensure that all the kids get admissions in good Schools. Its recommendations should rather be addressed to the gorvernment to create suitable conditions such that more and more private players are encouraged to start new schools and there is healthy competetion. Clearly there is a huge demand. And supply has to come spontaneously, if someone does not create obstructions. Sadly our governments do exactly that in many situations. What they should be doing instead, is to intervene just to the extent that they have to and in the way they are expected to, and to concentrate on more serious and basic issues; not to show its competency in percentages and percentage-points. (Ever written CAT :P) And end up giving stupid rules that are hardly applicable to things which require judgement and not just plain numbers, which even don't cover all aspects of the admission criteria, and make assumptions, some of which are silly. It's like concentrating one one big number and ignoring hundreds of others just because they are small fractions, though anyone can see that all those fractions if added together result in a number which is a million times bigger than the big number you went ahead with.
What the government should rather be doing is to set up schools for the poor and the needy. Not to come up with and impose on everyone such 100-point models, which are no better than the already existing ones. It should grant autonomy to the schools to come up with innovative ways to improve situations. Bans on interviews do make sense. It's all analogous to the soccer game. There are lines to demarcate the boundary. There are rules of the game, which the referee has to take care by watching that everyone follows. And within that framework, the players are free to coordinate, find their ways, and take the ball to the goal. If some player breaks the rules, the referee has the right to warn him multiple times, ask him to leave the ground...but if the referee tells the players how the ball is to be kicked, who should kick it, when it should be kicked, how often, and how hard, how many goals should be scored by each team, and each player, claiming that he's trying to ensure that the spectators get the maximum pleasure...it's not just ridiculous, it's no more a game. No pleasure playing it. And watching it is more pain than entertainment. The duty of the referee is to ensure a free and fair playground where each team can put its best effort and try to win the game. The spectators are entertained in the process. They pay for it. The players enjoy playing the game. And they earn from it. Everybody wins!
No comments:
Post a Comment