Is education only for the rich?
The problem is not just the division of state-private schools. It is about the current two classes of citizens: those who can pay for their education, those who are eligible and those who do not receive education, are entitled to it.
Our two-tier education system is unfair, and if nationalization of private schools will cost us money over the long term, then this payment is not ineligible. Some parents oppose this, as they fear if their children will be able to face the world without private school. Elimination of private schools will not only level the sports sector, but will also provide basic level education to poor students, on the basis of which they are empowered.
This debate is more than arguing over whether private schools take unfair advantage. Apparently they do. Rather, the debate is finally over whether the abolition of private schools will promote education equality.
Private school students try to justify their privilege by arguing that it is better that some have good quality education. This is the fundamental reason that this proposal has met with controversies. But such fear of the school system of the state is completely wrong.
However, the system can also be held to be largely unreasonable given that parents who tax the amount they are paying for their children’s education anyway. Parents cannot desire such an arrangement, simply because their money will go towards paying for the education of children whose parents will be unable to send them to a private school. Did their parents work hard to send their children to a better school? Some people have parents or maybe not – but is it the child who should be punished for this?
Nevertheless, some will be unable to accept that others should have equal opportunities. People who often shout loudly that we are punishing those who worked hard to become rich. Nevertheless, it is simply giving others the opportunity to work hard to live comfortably and break the chain of wealth-related legacy. In the process, we are punishing those who did nothing to earn their wealth, which are beyond luck to be born into a well-off family.
When we have a system that creates an amount of inequality that is harmful to our society and members of our economy, it is our duty to ask if we need to do anything about it. needed. Some people may ask: “Why should we try when it can cost us money?” While the abolition of private schools is essentially nationalizing them, all nationalization policies cost government money, but there is no argument against doing so. Rather, it is about a sensible cost-benefit analysis, which I think would favor their elimination altogether.
Now is a good time to turn to an important point in this debate, whether eliminating private schools helps their state counterparts. Of course, if students from education-intensive homes move to state schools, the culture at school will be better, encouraging educational attainment through both students and parents and setting standards for teachers. Just think of all those people who wanted to become doctors or lawyers or engineers, but they were never given the education that would be able to fulfill their dreams. Most are now trapped in low-paying jobs, reinforcing the cycle of poverty, and depriving our economy of the kind of growth that will actually create a qualitative system.
Private schools are the root cause of Delhi’s education problems, and it is time for us to end them. In light of all this, I urge people to stop for a second, and to consider the practicality of such a proposal. Our aim is to reduce educational inequality. Surely it makes more sense for pupils in the state to improve schools, instead of reducing the quality of education available to wealthy children, who presumably receive other benefits?