Page 30 - EW November 2025.pdf Final

Education News

Faculty and employees also ap- According to monitors of K-12
prehend the ISI head office will be education in Chennai, the govern-
moved out of Kolkata. Academics in ment directive to “regularise already
Kolkata believe that given the highly admitted students” means that if
adversarial relationship between the a child already studying in LKG or
BJP government at the Centre and the class 1 qualifies for the RTE quota,
Mamata Banerjee-led TMC govern- the school must now “reclassify” that
ment of West Bengal, the proposed child as a s.12 (1) (c) admittee, the
restructuring of ISI is another attempt fees must be stopped, and whatever
to erode Bengal’s intellectual and in- fees the school has already collected
stitutional pride — a symbolic strike at including for books, uniforms or
one of its most prestigious bastions of tuition, must be refunded. Essen-
academic excellence. tially, instead of offering the s.12
Baishali Mukherjee (Kolkata) (1) (c) benefit to new children this
year, schools are required to extend
TAMIL NADU it to already enrolled and eligible
Confusion confounded children. Evidently it has come to
the notice of government that some
children have been admitted under
rivate unaided (including s.12 (1) (c) and fees have been paid
matriculation and higher sec- by them.
Pondary) schools across Tamil However, private school associa-
Nadu have voiced strong objection tions have expressed dismay, con- on institutions trying to comply,”
to an October 2 directive from the tending that the directive has been says advocate M.J. John Arokia
state’s education department direct- issued midway through the term Prabhu, vice president of the Tamil
ing them to “reclassify” children when operational and financial com- Nadu Private Schools Association.
admitted into class I under s.12 (1) mitments had already been made. oreover, the timing of the regu-
(c) of the Right of Children to Free “By the time this directive came, we Mlarisation directive has raised
and Compulsory Education (RTE) had finalised admissions, paid for eyebrows in the academy. With as-
Act 2009, and to reimburse fees col- materials and begun classes,” says a sembly elections scheduled for early
lected from them within seven days. Chennai-based private school prin- 2026, many academics interpret this
Under s.12 (1) (c) private unaided cipal not wishing to be quoted. “Now directive as a populist move aimed
(and aided) day schools are obliged we are being told to refund fees at showing quick benefit delivery to
to reserve 25 percent of available immediately, with no clarity on when low-income families, who had been
capacity in class I for poor children reimbursements under s.12 (2) will coerced into paying admission and
in their neighbourhood and retain reach us. This is not practical.” tuition fees. “While the government’s
them in school until completion of There is substance in this com- move may seem administratively
class VIII. Under s.12 (2) of the Act, plaint because state governments sound, it alters the original spirit of
the tuition fees of poor children thus countrywide are tardy about reim- the RTE Act,” says K. Rajendran,
admitted are payable by state gov- bursing private school fees payable president of a private school associa-
ernment in full or part. by them under s.12 (2). “Reimburse- tion in Madurai district. “The goal
Currently there are 12,600 recog- ments under s.12 (2) are substan- of s.12 (1) (c) was to continuously
nised private unaided schools in the tial. Nearly Rs.714 crore from the increase the number of children from
state with an aggregate enrolment of academic year 2023-24 is still pend- disadvantaged families into pri-
5.7 million children. Since schools ing, in addition to approximately vate schools. Regularising children
established by religious and linguis- Rs.500 crore for 2024-25. Prolonged already admitted reduces opportuni-
tic minorities (and boarding schools) delay in reimbursing schools fees ties for other poor children.”
were exempted from the provisions for admitting poor children free-of- Meanwhile, the controversy has
of s.12 (1) (c) by a Supreme Court charge has severely strained schools’ reached the judiciary. In a contempt
judgement of 2012 (Unaided Private finances, making sudden refund petition filed in the Madras high
Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of mandates difficult to implement. court, government counsel informed
India & Anr), the number of unaided We are not against the s.12 (1) (c) Justice Dhandayuthapani that RTE
day schools that admitted poor mandate. We are against unpredict- funds for s.12 (2) reimbursement
neighbourhood children in 2025-26 able changes that disrupt planning have already been released but more
numbered 7,717 and 70,449 children. and place undue financial strain time is needed to transfer them to

30 EDUCATIONWORLD NOVEMBER 2025