The Delhi government recently ordered all nurseries, playschools and pre-primary schools, set up on land allotted by the government, to reserve 25 per cent of seats for poor students. This is in continuation of a 2007 order of the then government directing 395 private schools to reserve 20 per cent of new admissions for poor students.
The decision to reserve seats in such bastions is contentious - one that is both applauded and vilified. And, Gautam Rao, assistant professor, University of California, Berkeley, who studies the impact of the 2007 policy, finds evidence confirming the claims of both the supporters and critics of reservations.
Rao finds that as a result of this integration, rich students are likely to become more pro-social and generous. But he also finds that this integration has led to a decline in the English language scores of wealthy students, confirming the critics' worst fears.
The study titled 'Familiarity Does Not Breed Contempt: Diversity, Discrimination and Generosity in Delhi Schools' is based on a sample of around 2,000 students across 14 schools. It employs a combination of experiments to explore how the influx of poor students into private schools has affected the rich students on three parameters - generosity and pro-social behaviour, social interaction or discrimination against the poor and learning outcomes.
The results are heartening. Having poor classmates makes rich students more pro-social. There is a measurable increase in their volunteering for charitable causes at school. Rich students are more likely to behave in generous and egalitarian ways. They are more likely to share money with poor ones. Perhaps being exposed to the hardships faced by poor students affects their notions of fairness and generosity. They are more willing to interact with poor students and discriminate less against other poor students outside the confines of their school.
"This has huge implications for not just democratisation of schools but for our society as well," says Shantha Sinha, a rights activist, who headed the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). "I am glad that there has been such a remarkable trend in breaking the 'education apartheid' with only 25 per cent of children being poor in a classroom."
However, the study also finds a notable fall in English language scores of rich students (no such effects are observed in Hindi and Maths). This finding seems to vindicate critics' argument that any gains for poor children would come at a cost to existing students of private schools.
In other words, integrating disadvantaged students into elite bastions creates "the potential for negative peer effects on academic achievement".
Kiran Bhatty, senior fellow, the Centre for Policy Research and national coordinator for Right to Education at the NCPCR, says: "The study period is not long enough to measure outcomes on a sustained possible. This is a short time frame. It is possible that students whose scores declined catch up in the long run."
One probable explanation for the decline in English scores could be that the presence of poor students in classrooms causes conversations to shift from English to Hindi. This, it could be argued, might reduce wealthy students' fluency in English. If this be the case, as a natural corollary, there should be a visible rise in Hindi test scores. But the author does not find any evidence of that.
Another plausible explanation for the decline in test scores is that the study is only comparing average scores.
"It is possible that the decline he observed in the scores of rich students in English is actually happening among those students who were poor (in English) to begin with," says Santosh Mehrotra, professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Sinha is also sceptical about the results. "I am surprised that a small number of children who do not speak English would have such an impact on children learning English. It seems they have greater influence than the English teachers in the classroom."
As the Right to Education Act also contains similar provisions of reservations, this unique study gains additional significance as it could be construed to represent what is happening at the all-India level. Mehrotra advises caution against over-interpreting the results saying, "This is just one study. And, based on a small sample in Delhi. One does not know whether the results will hold across cohorts, cities. It may not hold true."
That may well be true. But the study raises a larger question: Should education policies involving some element of affirmative action be evaluated solely on the basis of learning outcomes? Or should outcomes relating to social behaviour also be taken into consideration?
In a society, especially one characterised by sharp differences, there is a tendency to argue for the primacy of narrow considerations. Such a simplistic view as experts argue tends to overlook the impact of policy on the fabric of social relationships and doesn't do justice to the complexity of the issue. In this context, should the decline in English language scores, while marginal, be seen in the larger context of the attempts to bridge the chasm that exists in society? As the author argues "Increased interactions across social groups, perhaps especially in childhood, can improve inter-group behaviours."
ABOUT THE STUDY
Study period: February 2012 to September 2013
Schools selected: Those with monthly fees up to Rs 10,000 and average acceptance rates of 11%
Sample size: 2,032 students across 14 elite schools
Students: Selected students were in grades 2 through 5 at the time of data collection
Source: Familiarity Does Not Breed Contempt: Diversity, Discrimination and Generosity in Delhi Schools
