A recent visit to a government-aided Bengali-medium school in Birbhum district of West Bengal proved to be an unsettling experience. Conversations with students from primary and secondary classes revealed significant gaps in language proficiency and basic computing skills, far below what should reasonably be expected at those levels. What initially appeared to be an isolated problem soon pointed to a deeper structural issue within the state’s school education system.
Motivated by this experience, I began examining the broader policy and institutional context of school education in West Bengal and comparing it with another Indian state that has taken a markedly different path—Kerala. The contrast between the two offers important insights into how education systems evolve and how policy choices shape outcomes, equity, and public trust.
In West Bengal, the deterioration of government schooling appears closely linked to a reform trajectory that increasingly treats education as an area for market-driven intervention. While the state government maintains that it is not privatising schools and no law has been enacted to that effect, a series of developments over recent years have fuelled widespread suspicion. A draft proposal on public–private partnerships (PPP) in school management that surfaced in 2022, though later withdrawn or clarified by the government, sparked strong protests among teachers and students. Simultaneously, the closure or merger of many low-enrolment government schools across districts, combined with steadily declining enrolment as parents shift children to private institutions, has weakened confidence in the public system.
Privatisation in education does not always mean outright sale of schools to private companies. It often takes subtler forms, such as public–private partnerships in management, outsourcing of key functions like teacher training and assessments, or the gradual hollowing out of government schools that pushes students towards private alternatives. In West Bengal, the concern largely revolves around this gradual shift rather than any formal handover of ownership.
From the government’s perspective, these debates emerge against a backdrop of real challenges: falling student numbers, uneven teacher deployment, gaps in infrastructure, and rising parental expectations for English-medium instruction, digital tools, and science education. Policymakers who favour PPP models argue that private participation could bring investment, modernisation, and accountability to a struggling system. Critics, including teacher unions and student bodies, counter that such arrangements risk fee escalation, exclusion of poorer students, erosion of job security for teachers, and the subordination of educational goals to commercial interests.
What lies beneath this debate is a deeper structural shift. Private school enrolment in West Bengal has been rising steadily, while government schools increasingly serve only poorer and rural households. As public schooling weakens, educational inequality widens, reinforcing class divisions through language, curriculum, and access to competitive examinations.
This is where the comparison with Kerala becomes instructive. Over the past two decades, Kerala has followed an almost opposite path. It has consistently invested more in public schooling, not just in absolute terms but in effective, targeted ways—upgrading buildings, libraries, laboratories, ICT infrastructure, and teacher training. Crucially, these investments were made before a crisis of enrolment or trust could take root.
As a result, government schools in Kerala continue to attract students from across social classes, including the middle class. English-medium instruction has been introduced widely within public schools, and quality education is not perceived as the exclusive domain of private institutions. Decentralised governance, strong involvement of local bodies, community participation, and a “neighbourhood school” philosophy helped stabilise the system as early as the 1990s and 2000s.
Unlike West Bengal, Kerala did not face sustained pressure to introduce PPP models because the public system remained robust. Improvements were driven largely through public–public partnerships involving the state, local governments, school management committees, and alumni associations. In many cases, alumni contributions helped upgrade facilities without handing control to corporate actors.
The outcomes of these divergent paths are visible in enrolment trends and social indicators. While West Bengal has seen school closures and mergers due to declining enrolment, Kerala has recently witnessed a rare reverse migration of students from private to government schools. Public trust in government education remains strong in Kerala, whereas it has weakened in West Bengal.
The implications for equality are profound. Education is among the most powerful equalising forces in society. In Kerala, sustained public investment ensured that government schools remained the mainstream option, keeping educational inequality low, literacy high across caste and income groups, and social mobility relatively strong. In West Bengal, the withdrawal of the urban middle class from government schools turned public education into a “last resort” for poorer households. The result has been a two-tier system, marked by language divides, uneven access to competitive exams, and widening urban–rural and class disparities—what economists describe as educational stratification.
At the core of this contrast lies a fundamental policy difference. Kerala adopted a preventive model: investing early to preserve quality, trust, and equity, thereby avoiding the need for private intervention. West Bengal followed a corrective model: underinvesting in public schooling, responding late to declining quality, and opening the door to privatisation debates once inequality had already widened.
Another telling distinction is who ultimately bears the cost of education. In Kerala, the state and local bodies absorb most of the cost. In West Bengal, families increasingly shoulder it through private schooling and tuition, accelerating inequality over time.
The lesson is clear. When the middle class remains invested in public schools, the entire system benefits. Education remains a social right rather than a market commodity. Kerala’s experience demonstrates that privatisation pressures are not inevitable; they emerge when public systems are allowed to weaken. West Bengal’s ongoing debate is less about ideology and more about the consequences of long-term underinvestment.
School education, at its core, is not a business opportunity but a social obligation. Treating it otherwise risks deepening inequality and eroding one of the most vital foundations of a democratic society.
---
*From Singapore. Based on the author's recent visit to West Bengal
Comments