印度免費教育能否打破貧富隔閡

NEW DELHI — Is that her mother or her maid?

新德里——那是她的母親還是她的女傭？

That was the question a little girl asked out loud about the woman who had accompanied her schoolmate to a birthday party. In any segment of the Indian urban population, the visual distinction between mothers and maids is sacred. The maids look impoverished and servile, and in a room filled with the master class they are encouraged to achieve invisibility.

一個小女孩大聲問出這個問題，她指的是一個陪同她同學參加生日派對的女性。在印度所有的城市人口中，母親和女傭之間的視覺區別都是神聖不可侵犯的。女傭看上去貧窮、卑躬屈膝，社會鼓勵她們在上等人云集的房間裏保持“隱形”。

The target of the question at the party was of modest means, but she was with the affluent mothers — like an equal, which she was. Her child was a beneficiary of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, which took effect in 2010. The act requires that all private schools in India, except those run by and for minority communities, reserve 25 percent of their seats for children in the neighborhood who are from 6 to 14 years of age and socially or financially disadvantaged. The schools must also provide this education free.

在那個派對上，小女孩所說的人看上去不富裕，但她和有錢人家的母親待在一起——像是與她們地位平等，事實的確也是這樣。她的孩子是《免費義務教育法案》(Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act)的受益者。該法案於2010年生效，規定印度所有的私立學校，除了少數族裔學校之外，都要保留25%的招生名額，給社區裏6至14歲的、在社會或經濟上處於弱勢的孩子。而且這些學校必須免費提供教育。

In affluent parts of Indian society, such students are known as “E.W.S.” (Economically Weaker Section), an abbreviation that is spoken in hushed tones.

在印度社會的富裕階層，這樣的學生被稱爲“經濟弱勢學生”(Economically Weaker Section)，人們通常以壓低的聲音說出它的縮寫EWS。

Long before the act came into force, there was opposition to it. The gracious reasoning of the middle class was that the poor, once uprooted from their islands of poverty, would be made to feel small. The more practical reasoning was that schools would raise fees for paying students to make up for the loss of revenue, or increase enrollments, thereby diminishing the quality of education. Also, there was a fear that their children might contract diseases from the poor.

在該法案生效很久之前，有人提出反對。中產階層的大道理是，窮人一旦被從貧窮的島嶼中連根拔起，他們就會自覺渺小。更現實的理由是，學校會提高付費學生的收費標準，來彌補收入上的損失，要不就增加入學人數，而這會降低教育質量。此外，他們還擔心自家孩子可能會從窮人那裏傳染上疾病。

In a society where the primal instinct of the classes is to collide rather than to integrate, the education act is creating situations that nobody knows how to resolve. When a school in New Delhi announced a pool party for its first grade, the affluent parents decided to donate swimwear to the poor students. But on the day of the party, only the poor children turned up. The other children were kept away by their parents because they did not wish their children to share the pool with the poor.

這個社會中，不同階級的原始本能是碰撞，而不是融合，而該教育法案所導致的一些狀況，也沒有人知道該如何解決。當新德里一所學校宣佈，將爲一年級學生召開一個游泳池派對時，富裕家庭的父母決定爲貧困學生捐獻泳裝。但是在舉行派對那天，只有窮人家的孩子到了場。其他學生的父母不讓他們來，因爲不希望自己的孩子與窮人分享游泳池。

Across the country, many private schools have chosen not to take students from the “weaker sections.” Many that do so have different classrooms or schedules for them even though the law forbids such segregation.

在全國範圍內，許多私立學校都選擇不從“弱勢羣體”中招生。很多招錄了貧困學生的學校，則給他們安排了不同的教室或課程表，即使法律禁止這種隔離做法。

“The act is here to stay, but there is no regulation,” said Sunil Batra, director of education at Shikshantar, a highly regarded school in Gurgaon, near Delhi, which has enthusiastically complied with the act. “What happens to schools that don’t comply? There is no answer. State and central governments are yet to determine the methods by which the act will be regulated.”

“該法案會實施下去，但相關的規定卻是空白，”一所知名學校的教務主任蘇尼爾·巴特拉(Sunil Batra)說，該校位於德里附近的古爾岡，已經在積極遵守這項法案。“不遵守這項法案會怎麼樣？沒有答案。邦政府和中央政府尚未決定採取哪些方法來執行這個法案。”

One school in the National Capital Region — the area around New Delhi — does not have a single student from the disadvantaged section.

在國家首都轄區，即新德里周圍的區域，有所學校連一個來自弱勢羣體的學生都沒有。

“There is no demand,” said the school’s owner, who asked not to be identified. “The poor have not applied — not one. And frankly, we are not chasing them, either. Maybe there is not enough awareness. Maybe they are too scared to walk into an expensive school.”

“沒有這種需求，”不願具名的學校所有者說。“沒有窮人申請入學，一個都沒有。坦率地說，我們也沒有爭取他們的申請。這或許是由於沒有足夠強烈的意識。或許是因爲他們太害怕，不敢走進一所富人學校。”

The largest owner of schools in India is the government, and its demand that the private sector take on the burden of educating the poor is, even though couched in the high purpose of abolishing barriers between the rich and the poor, an admission that the quality of its own schools is irredeemably pathetic.

在印度，最大的學校所有者是政府，但它卻讓私立學校承擔起教育窮人的負擔，儘管宣稱這是爲了消除貧富壁壘的高尚目標，但也相當於承認了公立學校的教學質量奇差無比。

“A majority of India’s private schools are just marginally better than the government schools,” said Ram Chand, who runs a private school in the capital region. “So what’s the government’s logic?”

“大多數印度私立學校，也只是比公立學校略強一點，”拉姆·昌德(Ram Chand)說，他是首都地區一所私立學校的負責人。“那政府的邏輯是什麼？”

But he agreed that the poor who attend the best private schools have benefited immensely. Two years ago, at his daughter’s birthday party, he too witnessed an indigent child arrive with her mother, and both of them had a miserable time. The next year, the mother dropped her daughter at the gates and refused to enter the house.

但他認爲，進入了一流私立學校的窮人從中受益匪淺。兩年前，他也親眼目睹了一個貧困孩子和她母親前來參加自己女兒的生日派對，結果這對母女在派對上都很鬱悶。第二年，那位母親把女兒送到了他家門口，就不肯再進來。

“But the girl was not afraid of the rich anymore — she had a great time,” Mr. Chand said. “She was transformed.”

“但女孩卻不再懼怕富人了——她玩得很開心，”昌德說。“她被徹底改變了。”