Some of the seven had left school. Some had never enrolled. Adults in the area described them in terms of behaviour, which was a way of not describing the exclusion.
When admission was sought, the school resisted: the children were considered too far behind academically to be placed. The parents did not know what the Right to Education framework requires for a child entering late or returning after an interruption. Without that, a refusal sounds like a professional judgement.
A programme coordinator went first to the families and then to the school staff, and talked through the right to education in both rooms.
The step that decided it came next. Parents and School Management Committee members met on their own, read the provision on age-appropriate admission, and agreed to go to the school together. Committee members then walked in with the families and put it plainly: a learning gap is a reason for special support, not a lawful basis for exclusion.
All seven children were admitted and began attending.
No parallel school was built. An institution that already existed in the village understood what its mandate allowed it to demand, and the public school did what it is funded to do.
A learning gap is a reason for support. It is not a lawful basis for refusal.
A Committee That Knows Its Own Powers
School Management Committees exist in every government school in India. Most have never been told what they can require. Training one costs very little and does not expire.