India's Right to Education Act: Household Experiences and Private School Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to shed light on the early phase of implementation of India’s landmark Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), effective as of April 2010, with special attention on the role of the private sector (i.e. private unaided schools). This working paper reports on the household- and school-level results of a larger project conducted in a Delhi slum. Data in this working paper were collected between June 2011 and April 2012 by a survey of 290 households in the selected slum area, semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample of 40 households, semi-structured interviews with principals from the seven most accessed schools in the survey sample, and documentary analysis of offi cial documents including draft versions of preceding RTE bills, the fi nal Act, Central Government model rules, Delhi rules, and associated government orders and notices. We report results on the implementation and mediation processes in schools; experiences of households accessing schooling under the RTE Act, with a focus on their ability to access free school places under the 25 percent free seats provision; and household and school understandings of the Act and its provisions. Results indicate a considerable gap between the offi cial articulation of the Act’s provisions and its implementation in practice by schools in the study. Data also expose that fee-free “freeship” private education for households in the study, was not a reality in the early phase of the RTE Act’s implementation. While the focus of our study was on the private sector and the 25 percent free seats provision, our investigation showed that this was just one facet, albeit important, of the Act. In fact, the Act necessitates fundamental changes, procedural and conceptual, to education as a whole.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".