The Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to merge over 10,000 government primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 students has triggered a serious debate. The move is explained as being in line with the National Education Policy 2020, which encourages school clusters and resource sharing for improving learning environments. Several states are taking similar steps, suggesting that this is becoming a broader trend in the management of primary education. However, concerns are being raised and legal redress is being sought. The Right to Education Act, 2009 guarantees free and compulsory education in neighbourhood schools for children aged between six and 14. The Act does not set any minimum enrolment requirement for schools to exist. Closing or merging schools in ways that make them less accessible poses a risk of diluting the neighbourhood principle that underpins the law. Neither the NEP nor a government order can supersede children’s fundamental right enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution.
Besides the legal concerns, the education ministry has pointed out declining enrolments in many government schools, a trend confirmed by UDISE+ data. Rather than merging schools, it is pertinent to ask why parents are withdrawing their children from schools. The answers are well known: inadequate facilities, teacher absenteeism, and a lack of accountability. These are failures of governance rather than a lack of demand for education. If resources were directed towards improving infrastructure, training teachers, and ensuring consistent quality, enrolments could rise again. For many families in towns and villages, especially for the marginalised, a nearby school is what makes education possible. When that school is shut, the burden of distance falls on the child, girls in particular. When schools move farther away, dropout rates for girls rise sharply. In UP, with a 57.18 percent female literacy rate, the loss of neighbourhood schools can only deepen the existing inequalities.
Such mergers may appear efficient in the short term, but the long-term costs could be considerable. A practical approach would be to strengthen the schools that already exist—by improving classrooms, ensuring teachers’ presence, and making schools centres of community trust. The constitutional promise under Article 21A is not simply about costeffective administration. It is about opening doors of opportunity for every child, regardless of background. Ensuring that neighbourhood schools remain accessible and vibrant is central to that promise.