If Government Schools Are Good Enough, Why Not for Leaders’ Children?
Editors Desk
The recent debate in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly over government schools has raised a question that goes far beyond one Private Members’ Bill.
Langate MLA Sheikh Khursheed proposed that children of ministers, legislators and government employees should be enrolled in government schools. The government opposed the proposal, arguing that parents should have the freedom to choose schools for their children and that compulsory admission was not a practical solution. Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel
The Assembly eventually rejected the Bill.
But the question behind the proposal remains.
If our government schools are good enough, why should the children of those running the government not study in them?
This is not really about forcing anyone
At first glance, the proposal may appear unfair. Parents naturally want to choose the education they believe is best for their children.
No parent should be forced to choose a particular school simply because they hold a government position.
But the debate is not only about compulsion. It is about confidence in public education.
If ministers, legislators and senior government officials regularly choose private schools for their children, ordinary parents may reasonably wonder why they should have complete confidence in government schools.
This does not mean every government school is poor or every private school is better. There are many government schools with dedicated teachers and successful students.
The government itself pointed to students from government schools who have qualified for NEET as evidence of what public institutions can achieve.
But individual success stories cannot answer the larger question of whether the entire system is strong enough.
What do ordinary parents see?
For many families, a government school is not one choice among many.
It may be the only affordable option.
A wealthy family can compare different schools, fees, teaching standards and facilities. A poor family may simply send its child to the nearest government school because there is no realistic alternative.
That creates an important difference.
If public schools are genuinely strong, parents should choose them because they trust them, not because they cannot afford anything else.
This is where the debate about leaders’ children becomes important.
The real test of public education
A government school should not be judged only by its buildings.
A new classroom is important. A laboratory is important. Computers and smart boards are useful.
But education is ultimately about what happens when the teacher enters the classroom.
Are teachers available?
Are students learning?
Are schools properly inspected?
Are parents able to raise concerns?
Are poor-performing schools identified and improved?
Are teachers supported and held accountable?
Are students receiving the same opportunities that children in expensive private schools receive?
These questions matter much more than the appearance of a school building.
What if leaders had a personal stake?
Imagine a government school where the children of ministers, MLAs and senior officials studied alongside children from ordinary families.
Imagine those parents attending parent-teacher meetings and asking questions about teaching, discipline, facilities and examination results.
Would that automatically solve every problem?
Of course not.
But policymakers would have a much more direct personal connection with the public education system.
That could make the quality of government schools an even more immediate concern.
This is the central idea behind the debate—not that leaders’ children are more important than other children, but that everyone should have confidence in the same public institutions.
We should not insult government-school students
There is another side of this debate that deserves attention.
Government-school students should never be made to feel that their schools are meant only for families who cannot afford private education.
Thousands of students study in government institutions and go on to achieve success.
Many government-school teachers are hardworking and deeply committed.
The problem, therefore, should not be presented as government schools versus private schools.
The real question should be:
Why can we not make every government school good enough to compete with the best schools available to ordinary families?
Accountability is the bigger issue
The Assembly debate has also brought the word accountability into the discussion.
When a public institution performs badly, who is responsible?
If a government school has poor results year after year, what happens?
If teachers are regularly absent, what action is taken?
If parents complain about facilities or teaching standards, how quickly does the system respond?
And most importantly, does the government publish clear information showing whether schools are improving?
These are the questions that deserve serious attention.
A school system cannot become strong simply because the government announces new buildings or infrastructure projects.
There must be measurable improvement in learning.
What can Jammu and Kashmir learn from other systems?
There is no perfect education system anywhere in the world.
European countries, for example, have different models of public and private education, and they also face challenges involving inequality, school choice and accountability.
But one important lesson is that quality assurance matters.
Schools need proper evaluation. Teachers need support and professional development. Parents need information about school performance. Governments need to know where the system is succeeding and where it is failing.
Jammu and Kashmir can develop its own model rather than simply copying another country.
The goal should be simple: a government school should provide an education that parents can trust.
Perhaps the Bill was asking the wrong question
The rejected Bill asked whether the children of politicians and government employees should be required to attend government schools.
A more important question may be:
Why don’t we have government schools that those families would willingly choose?
That changes the entire debate.
Instead of forcing parents into government schools, improve those schools until parents no longer feel the need to escape them.
Give teachers the resources they need.
Improve learning outcomes.
Strengthen inspections.
Make school performance transparent.
Listen to parents.
Reward good performance and address persistent failures.
And ensure that every child—whether from a politician’s family, a government employee’s family, a business family or a poor household—has access to high-quality education.
The final question
The rejection of the Bill has ended one legislative proposal, but it should not end the public discussion.
No child should be forced into a particular school because of their parent’s profession.
At the same time, no child should have to accept poor educational opportunities simply because their parents cannot afford a private alternative.
That is where the real issue lies.
The objective should not be to force leaders’ children into government schools. The objective should be to build government schools so good that leaders would choose them without being forced.
Because the real measure of a public education system is not how many poor families depend on it.
It is whether every family can trust it.
You Might Also Like:
Education In Kashmir with Complete Statistics
TCS Nashik ‘Conversion’ Scandal: Accused Nida Khan Suspended as Sexual Harassment and Coercion Probe Intensifies
