Springer MRW: [AU:, IDX:] … · Education policy · Regulation · Governance · India · School education Introduction India islocatedin South Asia andis theseventhlargestcountry

School System and Education Policy in India

Charting the Contours

Archana Mehendale and Rahul Mukhopadhyay

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Education in Colonial India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Structure of Education System in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

National System of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Types of Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Education Governance Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Institutional Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Role of the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Education Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Education Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Education Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Political Economy of Deferred Development of School Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Legal Mandates and Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Constitutional Provisions on Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Legislation Related to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Legal Remedies and Administrative Redress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Universalization of Education: Programs and Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Teachers and Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Examinations and Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

A. Mehendale (*)Centre for Education Innovation and Action Research, Tata Institute of Social Sciences,Mumbai, Indiae-mail: [email protected]

R. MukhopadhyayAzim Premji University, Bengaluru, Indiae-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020P. M. Sarangapani, R. Pappu (eds.), Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia,Global Education Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_13-1

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_13-1&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_13-1

AbstractIndia has had a long history of a larger institutionalized school system of morethan 150 years, starting from the colonial times to the present. This system hasnot only been influenced by its colonial history but also been shaped by differentsets of political, economic, and social changes ever since Independence.

This chapter aims to provide an overview of the above trajectory with a moredetailed focus on the changes that have taken place in the school system over thelast three decades. These decades have seen unprecedented expansion of theschool system; emergence of newer complexities in the reshaping of relationsbetween the state, market, and non-state actors in education and also a sharpeningof tensions between values of social justice and equity; and a rights-basedmandate of education as a public good on the one hand and market-based reformson the other. The chapter outlines the nature of these changes and the continuingchallenges faced by the school education system within a framework of theconstitutional provisions and the policy mandates that have been the guidingblocks for educational reform agendas.

KeywordsEducation policy · Regulation · Governance · India · School education

Introduction

India is located in South Asia and is the seventh largest country in the world in termsof area and the second most populous country with 1.3 billion people. It is ademocratic and secular country with great diversity in languages, religions,and cultures. It is made up of 29 states and seven union territories and followsa federal system of governance. India is one of the fastest-growing economies butwith persistent problems of deep social and economic inequities, poverty, and poorhuman development indices. The education system of India is large and complexwith multiple providers, multiple languages, and multiple aims of education andmarked by continuation of traces of a colonial system of education. The schooleducation system has been in a dynamic flux, particularly since the 1990s, and thishas not only transformed the role of the state but also created space and justificationfor non-state actors to play a role in the national project of universalizing education.By law, education is a nonprofit-making activity in India. However, with growingprivatization and entry of commercial interests in the education sector, this funda-mental fiber of education in India is being put to the test. This chapter focuses onoutlining the school education system in India and charts the various contours etchedin its transition over seven decades of Independence. After providing a brief back-ground to the school education system as it was shaped during colonial times insection “Education in Colonial India,” section “Structure of Education System inIndia” describes the structure of the post-Independence school education system, andsection “Education Governance Structures” presents the governance structure based

2 A. Mehendale and R. Mukhopadhyay

on principles of federalism and decentralization. Section “Role of the State”discusses the role of the state in provisioning, regulating, and financing education.In section “Political Economy of Deferred Development of School Education,” theauthors highlight the continuities and shifts in education policy frameworks byexamining them through the lens of political economy. Section “Legal Mandatesand Remedies” explains the legal framework followed by a discussion of the keyprograms for universalization of school education in section “Universalizationof Education: Programs and Schemes.” Sections“Curriculum,” “Teachers andTeacher Education,” and “Examinations and Assessments” focus on topics ofcurriculum, teachers and teacher education, examinations, assessments, and recentpolicy emphasis on learning outcomes. The final section summarizes the main ideaspresented in the chapter.

Education in Colonial India

An organized education system supported by the state came into being in the Indiansub-continent during the nineteenth century with the East India Company and theBritish colonial state (Basu 1982). There is scant evidence of a state-led institution-alized school system before the nineteenth century, and the origin and survival ofvarious forms of indigenous education institutions and their teachers were oftendependent on different forms of patronage. This pre-colonial system of schoolinghas also been noted to have been available primarily for the higher castes, theaffluent classes, and males (Nurullah and Naik 1971).

A diverse set of actors, including the colonial government, Christian missionar-ies, local rulers, wealthy landowners, social reformers, and individual philanthro-pists, helped in the gradual spread of education across caste, class, and genderbarriers. Despite these efforts, mass school education remained mainly a rhetoricof the colonial state. A paucity of funds and the task of addressing huge numbersfrom a low base of literacy saw a move toward involving private enterprise through asystem of grants-in-aid from the mid-nineteenth century. A move toward a moreuniversal schooling system was also affected by the decentralization of educationlater in the nineteenth century to provincial governments and further down to localbodies lacking adequate resources (Chaudhary 2010). A bureaucratic model ofschool administration for state schooling at the provincial levels also emerged duringthis period.

These transitions were accompanied by growing differences in provisioning andenrolments between the coastal and interior provinces due to differential levels ofpublic expenditures on education among these provinces, which was in turn due toregional differences in land revenues (ibid.). In other geographical contexts, suchas Bengal, with the development of institutions of the state under colonial rule, thelanded elite turned toward Western education as a means of shifting to non-agricultural occupations in urban centers (Basu 1974). The rise of such a system,understandably, led to both a reduced reach of the indigenous and vernacularlearning institutions and these being subsumed within the dominant colonial school

School System and Education Policy in India 3

system. Interestingly, this imposed and emergent colonial system had a role to playin the nationalist movement, in terms of informing modern ideas of statehood, andgenerated a diverse range of anti-colonial education reform agendas through socialreformers and nationalist leaders (Bhattacharya et al. 2003).

At one level, the involvement of multiple actors, such as the state, local leaders,private philanthropists, and social reformers, resulted in a blurring of boundariesbetween public and private financing and provisioning of school education. Theevolution of these different efforts was embedded in economic considerations, socialmilieu, and political processes of the times, and the diverse motivations behind theseinstitutional initiatives, therefore, were not amenable for a neat segregation into“public” and “private” ones (Jain 2018). At another level, plans for anti-colonialreform agendas did not gather enough political or popular support to reverse thetrajectory of education development set up by the colonial state. Importantly, thecentralized bureaucratic system of education emerging from the colonial systemled to fundamental changes in curricular and assessment processes and in the role ofthe teacher in the classroom (Kumar 2005).

The post-Independence schooling system continued to reflect many of the fea-tures of the colonial system. Most importantly, the hierarchical bureaucratic colonialschool system continued in the form of a centralized education administrationsystem at the state level. Consequently, the role of the teacher, as shaped by thissystem, came to be best understood as a “meek dictator” whose dominance in theclassroom was counterpoised against her disempowered role within the overallschool administration system. The curriculum, primarily oriented toward a civilizingmission, Western knowledge, and English language during the colonial period,persisted in a similar vein and remained far removed from the realities of both theteachers and students. Unreflective rote learning as a dominant pedagogical practicecontinued to be reinforced by the centrality of the textbook and examinations in theschool education system. Other such continuities from the colonial system includedmultiplicity of schooling systems, an inspectorial regime that became the dominantmode of establishing standards, a dual-language policy that created its own discrim-inatory logic, and allocation of a nonprofessional generalist cadre to educationadministration.

Structure of Education System in India

National System of Education

Even after India gained independence from the British in 1947, there was nostandardized system of education in the country, and education was structureddifferently across states. The Indian Education Commission (also known as theKothari Commission, 1964–1966) was constituted by the Government of India torecommend a national pattern of education. Based on its recommendations, theNational Policy on Education, 1968, suggested a “uniform educational structurein all parts of the country” through the adoption of a 10+2+3 pattern (para. 17).


It allowed the higher secondary education comprising the +2 level to be located ineither schools or colleges. The 1968 policy also endorsed the recommendation givenby the Commission on establishing a Common School System for building socialcohesion and national integration.

Twenty years after the adoption of this policy, the recommendations remainedlargely on paper. The then Government of India formulated the National Policy onEducation, 1986, and subsequently issued revised policy formulations in 1992. Thislaid down the idea of a national system of education that would provide accessto education of a comparable quality, up to a given level, for all children irrespectiveof their caste, creed, location, or sex, and also emphasized that effective measuresbe taken to establish a Common School System (para 3.2).

Given the diversity across states in the education structure, the following commonstructure of schooling was proposed, and all the states were expected to align theschools under their jurisdiction with this prescribed structure (refer to Table 1).

In this framework, preschool education has developed in a manner where it eithercan be a part of the school structure or can function separately as a preschool center.Although preschool education is not compulsory or a requirement to enter a gov-ernment school, there has been large-scale mushrooming of preschools in the privatesector, especially in cities and small towns, in recent years.

For the other levels, from the primary grades to higher secondary grades,the education structure looks like a pyramid with a wide base of primary schoolsthat are required to be located within a 1 km radius of a habitation and the upperprimary schools within a 3 km radius. Together, the primary and upper primarygrades constitute elementary education. The high school and higher secondary levelsconstitute the peak of the pyramid, and schools at these levels are availabledepending on population density, and vary across states. Each level of schoolingcould be offered independently as a school, giving rise to a number of small schools,with few grades and few students.

Three decades after the National Policy on Education, 1986, prescribed a nationalsystem of education, there remain significant variations across states in the waystages of school education are structured, thereby posing challenges to the teachingof specific grades and meeting the mandatory infrastructural norms laid down underthe Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. States such asAssam, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, and Maharashtra deviate from the uniform5+3+2 system prescribed by the National Policy on Education, 1986, and revised

Table 1 Structure of the school system in India

Level of schooling Grades and number of years

Preschool No specific number of years prescribed

Primary Grades 1–5, duration 5 years

Upper primary Grades 6–8, duration 3 years

High school Grades 9–10, duration 2 years

Higher secondary Grades 11–12, duration 2 years

Source: National Policy on Education, 1986, with revised policy formulations of 1992


policy formulations of 1992 (Ministry of Human Resource Development 2014). Thepolicy directive on establishing a Common School System has remained only onpaper, and no state government has implemented the directive of providing accessto education of a comparable quality to all children. Although the state governmentof Bihar created a roadmap for the implementation of Common School System inBihar, it was not put into action (Dubey 2007).

Types of Schools

There is a tremendous diversity of schools in India. A broad classification of schools,on the basis of who funds the schools, who manages the schools and the purpose forwhich the schools are established, is captured in Table 2.(1) Government-funded and government-managed schools are mainly run by the

local authorities and receive funding from the state governments. These schoolsare open to all and offer free and compulsory education from Grades 1 to 8.

(2) Government-funded schools and government-managed “specified schools” thatare defined under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,2009, are either run by autonomous bodies created under the central governmentor established by state governments in order to meet a specified purpose.Admission is restricted in specified category schools and the criteria rangesfrom merit (Navodaya Vidyalaya), social demographics (tribal schools, CentralTibetan schools) or gender (Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya).

Table 2 Types of schools

Government funded Privately funded and privately managed

Governmentmanaged(open to all)(1)

Governmentmanaged(specifiedcategory)(2)

Privatelymanaged(3)

Secular(4)

Minorityschools(5)

For specificgroups(6)

Run by localauthoritiesand stategovernmentavailable athabitationlevel

Run by central orstate governmentand for a specificpopulation(tribal welfareschools,NavodayaVidyalaya,KendriyaVidyalaya,Central TibetanSchools, SainikSchools, KasturbaGandhi BalikaVidyalaya,SanskritPathshala)

Grant-in-aidschoolsBridgeschools/specialTrainingSpecialschoolsMadrasaModelSchools/PPPschools

Privateschools

ReligiousminorityschoolsLinguisticminorityschools

Special schoolsfor children withdisabilitiesAlternate schoolsrun bynongovernmentalorganizations forstreet children,migrants


(3) Government-funded and privately managed schools are those which receivefunding from state government (grant-in-aid schools, special schools, Madrasa,bridge schools) or central government (Madrasa). The nature and durationof government funding varies. Since the 1990s, state governments have slowlywithdrawn from the grant-in-aid schemes and have not provided new grants.However, various types of schools have been supported by the central and stategovernments under “public-private partnership,” with varying terms and condi-tions, with private parties.

(4) Privately funded, privately managed, secular schools are a hugely diversecategory of schools, ranging from highly elite high-fee-paying schools to low-fee-paying schools. Admission policies vary and could depend on family back-ground, ability to pay fees, and ability to qualify in entrance tests.

(5) Privately funded, privately managed minority schools are provided recognitionas either religious or linguistic minority schools based on the criteria laid downby the respective state governments. The Constitution of India (Articles 29 and30) recognizes the fundamental rights of minority institutions to administer theinstitutions without any form of governmental interference.

(6) Privately funded, privately managed schools for specific groups are thoseestablished by nongovernmental organizations for catering to special educationneeds of certain groups of children.

This diversity of schools, in terms of their management, funding, establishment,kind of children served, and education programs offered, poses a unique challengefor regulation and for monitoring the standards of equity and quality.

Education Governance Structures

The political and administrative structure of the education system in India is basedon the principles of federalism and decentralization.

Federalism

India has a federal structure of governance. The Seventh Schedule under Article 246of the Indian Constitution (as amended by the Constitution (Forty-second) Amend-ment Act, 1976) lays down education as a concurrent subject, which means that lawson matters related to education can be made either by the central government or bythe state governments. Although education was a state subject until the amendmentof 1976, Naik (1970) observed that there was a strong authority of the centralgovernment given the political circumstances and the role of the Planning Commis-sion. Since then, the relations between central and state governments in educationhave been dynamic and have involved legislative and financial distribution ofpowers. During the early 1990s, the national economy was liberalized, and thecentral government assumed greater role and power in legislating on education,


formulating new policies, launching new flagship programs in a mission mode withinternational aid, and allocating funds to state governments for implementation ofthe new planned programs. While the central government formulates and executesthe national legal and policy framework, state governments technically have theautonomy to create new legislation, structures, and programs that meet the state-specific requirements. However, Tilak (2018) argues that autonomy of state govern-ments in education has weakened over the years due to increasing reliance onsupport from the central government (p. 291).

Decentralization

The Indian Constitution provides the structure for decentralized governance, andit recognizes the role of the local authorities in providing school education.In rural areas, it is the Panchayat Raj Institutions (Eleventh Schedule underArticle 243G), and in urban areas, it is the municipal authorities (Twelfth Scheduleunder Article 243W) that are delegated power, authority, and responsibility forproviding education. Education decentralization received both a policy and practicelevel thrust only with the passing of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments(related to the establishment of the Panchayat Raj Acts of 1993).

Decentralization serves the “principle of subsidiarity,” empowers the local com-munities, and improves efficiency in governance. Yet, the extent to which localbodies have been delegated funds, functions, and functionaries varies across states.State governments have decentralized education by empowering the local self-governments to administer education programs, appoint teachers, and decide schoolcalendar. However, evidence shows that although responsibilities and functions havebeen transferred to the local authorities, funds and powers have not been fullytransferred, making decentralization a challenging proposition.

Govinda and Bandyopadhyay (2011) observe that most efforts toward educa-tional decentralization have been top-down and there are variations across states.Kerala, for example, through its much-discussed model of People’s Planning,transferred extensive powers and responsibilities related to education to its localbodies along with substantial devolution of development funds to plan and executedifferent school improvement activities. On the other hand, Madhya Pradesh hasbeen noted to have adopted an approach that combined “delegation and devolution”by transferring powers and responsibilities regarding school education to PanchayatRaj Institutions (PRIs) and simultaneously attempting to shift control of the schooleducation system to these local governing bodies. Overall, the record for decentral-ization of education is better in states like Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka,and Himachal Pradesh that have been more proactive in implementing PanchayatRaj systems (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2017).

Evidence suggests that the factors influencing uneven decentralization in educa-tion are (a) unclear and contradictory rules and guidelines for implementationof the local structures of governance; (b) periodic changes in intent and extent ofdecentralization, often embedded in sub-national political dynamics; this has also


been accompanied by political co-option; (c) lack of awareness and inadequatecapacity among relevant stakeholders comprising the PRIs; and (d) inadequatefinancial support and devolution of powers to Panchayat Raj Institutions (ibid.).Decentralization of educational governance in urban areas is challenging due to themigrant populations of working poor, and overstretched, and at times dysfunctionalurban local bodies operate within socioeconomically disadvantaged geographies.Juneja (2018) notes that in cities like Mumbai, Nagpur, Surat, and Vadodara withdeclining enrolment trends, the municipal corporations provide only primary level ofeducation and devolve post-primary education to private-aided schools, while incities like Delhi, Indore, Jaipur, and Coimbatore that have increasing enrolmenttrend, the municipal corporations run schools up to the secondary level.

Besides political decentralization at the lower levels, grassroots decentralizationhas also been sought to be introduced through quasi-legal bodies such as VillageEducation Committees (VECs) comprising parents, teachers, and local authorityrepresentatives since the 1990s. These structures continued to be a part of thelarge-scale national programs in the 1990s and 2000s. With the Right of Childrento Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the School Management Committees(SMCs) became statutory bodies. They were entrusted with the responsibility tomonitor the working of the school and school grants and prepare school develop-ment plans that would form the basis for bottom-up planning and allocation of fundsby appropriate levels of the government. However, as with the earlier VECs andprovision of such bottom-up planning even under the District Primary EducationProgram (DPEP) and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), such micro planningexercises often get sidelined, and plans are made at the higher levels of administra-tion using standardized program templates. Also, like the PRIs, the performanceof state governments vis-à-vis the SMCs reveals a mixed picture. While in a statelike Nagaland, the “communitization” program has led to the school level parentalcommittees to supervise and monitor a wide range of school activities, includingcivil works, teacher attendance and engagement, and school grants, other stateslike Bihar and Tamil Nadu have been noted to have been lagging behind in theconstitution of SMCs and specification of their roles in school management(Ramachandran et al. 2013). The efforts of Karnataka with the SMCs show yetanother trajectory, with the state taking an early initiative to establish structures forparental participation called School Development and Monitoring Committees(SDMCs) at the school level in 2001. Further efforts by the state and civil societyinstitutions have led to the SDMCs being placed under the panchayats and institu-tional linkages being established between the SDMCs and village panchayats(Niranjanaradhya 2014). Overall, the challenges with SMCs seem to be like theones faced by PRIs: (a) absence of orientation and training; (b) lack of systemiclinkages for local-level planning and school management; and (c) ambiguity aboutdevolution of powers and responsibilities to these structures. However, as with PRIs,the involvement of other organizations – NGOs, CSOs, and corporate CSR initia-tives – has seen to be effective in the establishment and empowerment of the SMCs(Ramachandran et al. 2013).


Overall, it can be said that the political promise of decentralization has unfoldedand progressed unevenly across India. The extent and depth of education decentral-ization across different states have reflected this uneven progress. More importantly,recent programmatic structures in education have not, in practice, facilitated statedobjectives of local-level planning or decision-making; neither has the executivestructure in school education shown a willingness to match the decentralizationprocesses of elected structures. As a result, the goal of building and capacitatingstructures for planning at the school level remains elusive and academic, and otherschool-related decisions continue to be taken at the block, district, or state levels.

Institutional Structures

The institutional structures related to education operate on the principles of federal-ism and decentralization discussed in the earlier sections. These structures can beclassified into four broad categories based on their primary objectives and functions.First is the political structure that is responsible for policymaking and legislatingon education, with the central and state levels playing a key role. Second is theadministrative structure that is responsible for executing the laws and implementingthe policy provisions, programs, and schemes. All levels of administrative structureplay a distinct role, with local bodies at the district, block, and cluster levels being atthe forefront of implementation. Third is the academic structure that is responsiblefor formulation of curriculum and capacity building. The central- and state-leveladministrative structures are engaged in the formulation of curriculum and concep-tualization of research and trainings, while the academic structures at the districtlevel and below are engaged in implementation of training and capacity building.Fourth is examination boards at the central and state level that lead the assessmentsand examinations of both students and teacher trainees and have jurisdiction overschools that have been affiliated to the respective examination boards. A schematicframework of the different institutional structures at multiple levels that governeducation is presented in Table 3.

Role of the State

Education governance in India operates with the help of institutional structuresshown in Table 3. These institutions are responsible for coordinating the three keyeducation governance functions of the state, viz., provision, regulation, and financ-ing (Dale 1997). The next section presents how education provisioning, regulation,and financing work in India.


Table 3 Structures governing school education

Level Political Administrative AcademicExaminationboards

Central Government ofIndia

Department of SchoolEducation andLiteracy, Ministry ofHuman ResourceDepartment

National Councilfor Education,Research andTraining(NCERT),National Institutefor EducationPlanning andAdministration(NIEPA),National Councilfor TeacherEducation(NCTE)

Central Board ofSecondaryEducation(CBSE), Councilfor the IndianSchool CertificateExamination(CISCE) (privateboard conductingICSE exams),National Instituteof OpenSchooling(NIOS)

State Stategovernment

Department of PublicInstruction/Directorateof School Education/Education Department

State Council ofEducation,Research andTraining(SCERT), StateInstitute ofEducationalManagement andTraining(SIEMAT)

State Boards ofExamination,State Boards ofOpen School,State MadrasaBoards, StateSanskritEducation Board

Local Zila Panchayat/Parishad/urbanlocal bodies

District EducationOffice

District Institutefor Education andTraining (DIET),Colleges ofTeacherEducation(CTEs), andInstitutes ofAdvancedStudies inEducation(IASEs)

BlockorMandal

PanchayatSamiti/MandalPanchayat

Block/MandalEducation Office/School Inspectorate

Block ResourceCentre (BRC)and ClusterResource Centre(CRC)

Village/city/town

GramPanchayat(rural areas)Zones/wardsand councilors(urban areas)

Village EducationCommittee and HeadMasterEducation Committeesand Ward Committees

Teachers

Adapted from Ramachandran (2009, p. 143)Note: Specific nomenclature of institutions could vary across states


Education Provision

There have been significant efforts to address access to education since the inceptionof the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in 2000–2001. According to the Ministry of HumanResource Development (2018a), the literacy rates for those who are above 7 yearsare 70.8% in rural areas and 85.9% in urban areas in 2014. The total number ofschools in 2015–2016 was 1,522,346, of which 840,546 were primary, 429,624 wereupper primary, 139,539 were secondary, and 112,637 were senior secondary schools.Schools run by government were 1,102,783, government-aided were 83,787,and private unaided were 335,776. The government is the predominant providerof schooling at the elementary level. According to U-DISE Flash Statistics for2016–2017, over 80% of schools at primary and upper primary level were run bythe government, while private schools constituted around 11% of all schools atthese levels. However, at the secondary and higher secondary levels, less than50% of the schools are run by the government. Government-aided schools andprivate schools comprised the remaining half of the secondary and highersecondary schools (NIEPA 2018). Over the period 2000–2001 and 2015–2016,total schools have increased by 56.8%, and elementary schools have increasedby 50.3%. A total of 2,606,120 teachers are appointed at the primary school level,2,612,347 at the upper primary level, and 1,431,591 at the secondary level. For everyteacher, there are 23 students at the primary level, 17 students at the upper primarylevel, and 27 students at the secondary level (Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment 2018a).

The gross enrolment rate (GER) during 2015–2016 was 99.2 for Grades 1–5. TheGER was much higher for both Scheduled Caste students (110.9) and ScheduledTribe students (106.7). The Gender Parity Index based on GER for 2015–2016 is1.03 at the primary level, 1.10 at upper primary level, and 1.02 at the secondarylevel. The Gender Parity Index in the case of Scheduled Castes is 1.03 at the primarylevel, 1.10 at the upper primary level, and 1.04 at the secondary level. However, theGender Parity Index is comparatively lower in the case of Scheduled Tribes with0.98 at the primary level, 1.03 at the upper primary level, and 1.02 at the secondarylevel (Ministry of Human Resource Development 2018a).

Although the mean years of schooling have increased from 4.19 years in 2000 to5.12 years in 2010, retention in school and transition to higher levels of schoolingcontinues to be an issue. According to DISE figures, 88.56% transition from primaryto upper primary stage, 90.32% transition from elementary to secondary stage, and66.42% transition from secondary to higher secondary stage (National Instituteof Educational Planning and Administration 2018). The average annual dropoutrate in school education during 2015–2016 is 4.13% at the primary level, 4.03%at the upper primary level, and 17.06% at the secondary level. However, the dropoutrates are higher at all three levels – primary, upper primary, and secondary – for theScheduled Castes as compared to the Scheduled Tribes. As field-based studiesreiterate, dropouts continue to be high among the socially and economically disad-vantaged groups like the SCs, STs, Muslims, and, within these, first-generationschool-goers (Ramachandran and Naorem 2012).


In the realm of secondary education, gross enrolment rate is only around 71% ascompared to 90% in East Asia and 103% in Latin America. Net enrolment rate isa little higher than 40%, and only around 60% of all children complete secondaryschool. This suggests that many children are overage for their grade. Only around50% of the children completing secondary school pass the board examinations.There are significant differences across social groups with 11% of children fromthe lowest wealth quintile likely to reach secondary school as compared to almostall in the richest quintile. Due to demographic transition from low replacement levelfertility, there will be decreasing numbers of children in the secondary stages, andadditional demand will come mostly from marginalized groups who complete theelementary stages. Equity implications are further sharpened as private schools thatcurrently enroll around 15% in the secondary stages will not be affordable for thepoorer sections (Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan-Technical CooperationAgency (RMSA-TCA) 2015; Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan n.d.).

Education Regulation

Regulation of school education in India is primarily a bureaucratic exercise under-taken within a normative framework laid down by the government with the objectiveof serving social aims. Private actors are free to establish and run schools, butprohibited from profiteering, and are supposed to operate within the legal frameworkgoverned by both central and state laws. Most states have had state educationlegislation to regulate private schools for several decades. At present the normsand standards for schools under the RTE Act, and the state rules under the Act, havereplaced the earlier state-level regulations except those issues where there are nocorresponding new norms under the RTE Act. The new norms under the RTE Actpertain mainly to school infrastructure, pupil-teacher ratios, teacher qualifications,and the curriculum. The Act has also mandated quota-based reservations for mar-ginalized groups in private schools, for which the state is meant to reimburse theschools. Inspection and fee regulation, however, continue to be governed by statelaws, among many other norms on school education at the state level.

In practice, a host of governmental and quasi-governmental agencies at boththe center and the state are involved in enacting rules, executive orders, and judicialdirectives on various functional aspects of the school system. However, neitherare these agencies nor are their various statutes necessarily interdependent. Inaddition, there is no common regulatory framework for different private providers.Understandably, criticism has been directed at both differential norms beingenforced with respect to government and private schools (as in the case of infra-structure provisions under RTE, with many government schools not matchingthe RTE provisions and being exempt from scrutiny) and differential norms beingapplied between different types of private (as in the case of exemptions under theRTE granted to minority schools, residential schools, and schools affiliated tointernational school boards). Regulatory inconsistencies also arise from normsenacted by different functional departments of the government system that do notwork in coordination with each other.


The wide spectrum of regulating agencies, their diverse enactments, and theabsence of an overall regulatory framework has meant, in practice, a situation ofde facto deregulation. For example, private schools that are non-compliant withRTE continue to exist in the presence of norms that have been observed to be bothrestrictive and over-regulative. Mehendale and Mukhopadhyay (2018) discuss indetail some of these contradictions with reference to different areas of educationalgovernance and underline both the increasing complexity of the existing regulatorystructure as well as the inadequate capacity of current regulatory institutions tonegotiate divergent regulatory claims. Table 4 provides a summary of the multipleregulatory agencies and their functions.

Though regulation in school education is an under-researched area in the Indiancontext, empirical research on institutional processes around private and governmentschools reveal a similar scenario of contradictory regulatory norms and differentways and means used by private schools to get around existing norms. For example,studies in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh show how private schoolsuse these contradictions to evade formal regulations of the state and how, in practice,private schools need to comply with only a few norms for obtaining and continuingrecognition despite the presence of a larger number of more detailed norms sanc-tioning this activity (Srivastava 2008; Tooley and Dixon 2005). In a more recentstudy, Ambast et al. (2017) analyze the existing regulatory framework for privateschools in India in five states to identify common concerns and reform areas andthereby provide suggestions on model regulations for such schools.

Education Financing

Government financing of school education covers expenditures at the elementary,secondary, and senior secondary levels. Resources include contributions by thecentral government, state governments, local bodies, and foreign aid, the last beingrouted primarily through central government budgets. Both the central governmentand state governments are responsible for financing education as it is in theConcurrent List, indicating joint responsibility. At both the central and state levels,there are many departments other than the Department of School Education thatalso provide significant financial resources on different aspects of the educationsystem. The main portion of the total budget for education, more than 75%, iscontributed by the states. In the total education budget, the share of school educationis the highest at around 70%. The Ministry of Human Resource Development(MHRD) at the central level and the Department of Education at the level of thestates together finance more than 80% of the school education budget at theelementary and secondary levels.

Although the Indian Education Commission (1964–1966) recommended alloca-tion of 6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for education, and the subsequentpolicy recommendations endorsed this goal, government spending on education hasbeen around 3% of GDP. Furthermore, instead of “having a holistic and integratedapproach, the government has adopted a fragmented approach, looking at the


different levels of education as if they compete with each other for resources” (Tilak2007, p. 877). In recent times, central government funds for school education havebeen routed through the two important centrally sponsored schemes, Sarva ShikshaAbhiyan and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan. Funds for implementing the

Table 4 Multiple regulatory agencies for school education and their functions

Regulatee Activity Regulator/regulatory instrument

Private schools Establishment and registration ofa not-for-profit body

Registrar, Societies Registration ActPublic Trusts ActRegistrar, Companies Act

Private schools Recognition and de-recognitionof the school

State government, under the RTE Act andrules

Private schools Education of children fromeconomically weaker anddisadvantaged sections

State government

Private schools Fee hikes State governments (in certain states)

All schools(secondaryschools only)

Affiliation to an examinationboard

State Examination Boards, Central Boardof Secondary Education, Council for theIndian School Certificate Examinations

All schools Curriculum Central and state governments throughthe national and state level curriculumframework. For secondary schools it isfurther regulated through the affiliatingbodies

All schools(for elementarystage)

School infrastructure Central and state governments throughRTE Act and state rules under RTE andstate legislation

All schools(for elementarystage)

School functioning Central and state governments throughRTE Act and state rules under RTE andstate legislation

Teachers Eligibility National Council for Teacher Education(NCTE) and state governments

Teachers Code of conduct Appointing authorities such as central andstate governments through RTE Act andstate rules under RTE and state legislationand private managements

Teachers Service conditions Appointing authorities such as central andstate governments and privatemanagements

TeacherEducationInstitutions

Recognition NCTE through its regulations


Curriculum State Council of Education, Research andTraining; Respective Universitiesaffiliated to


Programs on Special NeedsEducation

Rehabilitation Council of India throughRehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992

Adapted from Mehendale and Mukhopadhyay (2018)


Right to Education Act have also been channeled through the SSA. The centrallysponsored schemes (CSS) have pre-planned fund-sharing ratios between thecentral and state governments to ensure both contribute to it. The Union budget of2018–2019 proposed to subsume the three centrally sponsored schemes of SarvaShiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), andTeacher Education (TE) under the umbrella program Samagra Shiksha and treatthe school education sector holistically from preschool to class 12. At the same time,the Union Government has pursued its fiscal consolidation by compressing expen-diture, mostly on central schemes in social sectors including school education.In 2013, the 14th Finance Commission, a body constituted every 5 years to definefinancial relations between the central government and state governments, recom-mended a substantial increase in the share of states in the divisible pool of centraltaxes. This is expected to provide state governments with more untied resources(delinked from the CSS) that the states can use to balance the reduction in tied fundsthrough CSS and also increase their spending on social sectors, including education,based on their budget priorities. However, even with the recent fiscal changes,reports suggest that budgetary spending on school education in India continues tobe much lower than what is required in almost all the important areas of schooleducation, such as availability of teachers and their training, monitoring, interven-tions for children from marginalized sections and strengthening community engage-ment with schools (Rajesh 2018; Kundu 2018a).

Although the overall expenditure on elementary education increased by 26%in nominal terms between FY 2011–2012 and FY 2014–2015, there have beeninterstate differences. Furthermore, there has been a marginal decline in elementaryeducation spending in real terms from 1.57% of the GDP in FY 2011–2012 to 1.38%of the GDP in FY 2014–2015. There has been an increase in state expenditureper student after 2011–2012, but this could be due to falling levels of studentsattending government schools (Dongre and Kapur 2016). The Comptroller andAuditor General has pointed out the lack of utilization of funds by the stategovernments and delays in the release of funds as critical issues in implementationof provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009(Union Government (Civil), Ministry of Human Resource Development 2017).

Political Economy of Deferred Development of School Education

The stated goals of school education underwent remarkable changes afterIndependence, particularly in their orientation toward universalization and inclusion,and acknowledgment of the role of the primacy of the state in realization of thesegoals. The colonial project had already seen a consolidation of the middle classeswho had benefited disproportionately from the predominantly urban school educa-tion system steeped in the civilizational reform agenda deriving from the experiencesof modern Europe (Kumar 2005). The decades after Independence were character-ized by state-led development under a mixed economy model and witnesseda continuing significance of the middle class through its appropriation of benefits


accruing from incremental industrial and social changes that was made possiblethrough this model. A focus on higher and technical education, instead of masseducation, complemented such a consolidation of cultural capital among the tradi-tional and new elites. In continuation with pre-Independence trends, the elite upperclasses and upper middle classes sought to derive “positional benefits” of schooleducation through private unaided English-medium schools that formed an exclusiveminority in comparison to the aided and government schools. This went togetherwith the emergence of new political formations from among the subordinate classesand castes, and the developmental state failed to either institute substantive redis-tributive efforts or provide the foundations for large-scale capitalist transformation.

Therefore, in reality, school education came to be marginalized in the overallschema of policy thrusts soon after Independence. Given that the Nehruvian devel-opment agenda followed during the initial decades after Independence laid dispro-portionate emphasis on higher education, school education trends during this periodshowed low levels of retention, poor transition rate from primary to the next stages,and a process of social streaming through exclusivist forms of schooling. Educationpolicies of these early decades displayed similar ambiguity, especially on the roleof the state with reference to questions of equity and redistributive justice in therealm of elementary education. Even with the presence of a substantial numberof state legislation enabling state governments to make primary education free andcompulsory, absence of adequate funds and other priorities in education became therecurring justification for a continuing deferral of implementation of such Acts(Juneja 2003).

Similarly, neither the Education Commission Report (1964–1966), or theNational Policy on Education 1968, or the National Policy on Education 1986 didmore than endorse the need for more efforts to make elementary education universal.The significance of the erstwhile Article 45 of the Indian constitution and theonus it put on the state to provide free and compulsory education till the age of 14was, thus, systematically diluted across these early decades after Independence(Mehendale 2005). The ambivalence of the state on an equitable system of educationwas also visible in the endorsement of different types of schools and in the overallcontinuation of a segregated school education system with the presence of differenttypes of providers. In the 1970s and 1980s, a demand for urban English-mediumschooling endured among the upper middle classes linked to the governmentbureaucracy, public sector organizations, businesses, traditional large landowners,and an emergent class of rich farmers. However, there still existed a relatively largesection of the middle class who continued to access the aided and governmentschools offering education in the vernacular till about the 1980s. The decade ofthe 1980s saw the beginnings of large-scale centrally driven programs in elementaryeducation, a mode of state intervention that would thereafter become the preferredapproach to educational change. Overall, in terms of state education policy, “formost part of the seventies and for the better half of the eighties, a policy of piecemealand gradual expansionism governed the development of elementary education”(Velaskar 2010, pp. 69–70).


Universalization of education came to the forefront of education policy discourseand governmental programs once again in the early 1990s along with a globalimpetus on achieving education for all. The economic crisis of 1991 along withthe structural adjustment program, liberalization of the Indian economy, and rapidprivatization that followed paved the way for international financial institutionsstepping in and offering loans for education and health programs. Even though theGovernment of India took international aid for the first time and launched the DistrictPrimary Education Program (DPEP) for universalizing education, evidence showedthat there was a decline in growth at the primary enrolment stage in most Indianstates. Meanwhile, while fulfilling one of the conditionalities of DPEP funding – thatof filling existing teacher vacancies – states such as Rajasthan, Gujarat, MadhyaPradesh, and Uttar Pradesh stopped appointments of new full-time permanentteachers and instead filled in vacancies by appointing contractual para-teachers(Kumar et al. 2001).

These larger changes in the political and economic landscape in the 1990salso saw the emergence of new forms of corporate capital in the formal economyand a corresponding expansion of the informal economy. Alongside, there was anexpansion and reconfiguration of the middle class with its aspirations now directlylinked to these larger changes. What ensued was a gradual exit of the middle classesfrom the government and government-aided schools offering vernacular educationtoward an expanding and stratified private school sector. Although diversity amonggovernment and private schools existed historically, the 1990s saw further stratifi-cation and diversity in the private schools with schools ranging from those offeringinternational baccalaureate programs at very high fees for the elite at one end of thespectrum to low-fee-paying unrecognized schools catering to the lower rungs of thestratified social order at the other end. The common appeal for the private schoolshas been the tag of “English-medium” education. This, in the post-liberalizationperiod, came to signify “cultural capital” for large sections of the society and a meansfor upward social mobility with access to new forms of employment, especially inthe face of shrinking opportunities for either government employment or employ-ment in the public sector.

While this period was marked by coalition politics, fiscal deficits, entry ofinternational financial institutions, opening of the Indian markets, globalization,and creation of new jobs in the private sector, the National Policy on Education,1986, was revised in 1992, and comprehensive Programmes of Action were preparedfor the first time. Furthermore, judicial activism on part of the Supreme Court ofIndia in Unnikrishnan JP v State of Andhra Pradesh (1993 AIR 217) declared thatthe right to education flows from the right to life, and education until the completionof 14 years shall be a fundamental right. This landmark judgment created a demandfor amending the Indian Constitution to make education a fundamental right(Mehendale 2005). The Constitution of India was amended in 2002, and subse-quently a landmark legislation called the Right of Children to Free and CompulsoryEducation, 2009, was adopted.

The policy imperatives since 2000 shifted to an increased emphasis on public-private partnerships, measurement of learning outcomes, establishing mechanisms


of teacher accountability, and adoption of new public management for improvingefficiency. Despite high GDP growth rates, increased foreign exchange reserves,and India being projected as one of the fastest-growing economies, the role of thestate in education financing, management, and regulation reduced (Srivastava 2008).The 12th Five-Year Plan, which was the last of the Five-Year Plans that India hashad since 1950 as part of being a “planned economy,” targeted universalization ofsecondary education by 2017 and underscored a focus on a range of issues. Theseincluded quality of education (as against quantity which was emphasized in the 11thPlan); investment in faculty development and teachers’ training; significant reduc-tion in social, gender, and regional gaps in education; promotion of education forlife; development of vocational skills to ensure employability in response to chang-ing market needs; and development and operationalization of public-private part-nership models in school education.

Broadly, the inadequacy of the state to effectively deliver basic services proved tobe a major supply-side factor in the growth of NGOs and private sector involvementin education specifically, and in public services in general. In addition, the state’sinability to cater to sharp and persisting regional, social, ethnic, and economicdifferences led to the state involving non-state actors for their technical expertiseand to supplement public resources. Along the way, the private sector also expandedinto a diverse range of education services including textbooks and other curricularproducts, digital and multimedia solutions for teaching-learning, and teacher train-ing. In more recent times, official plan and policy discourses shifted to viewing thestate as essentially inefficient and, therefore, more explicitly favoring an expandedrole of the private sector in school education. Thus, private involvement in provi-sioning of schools as well as other education services has come to be institutional-ized through different types of contractual agreements giving effect to a range ofpublic-private partnerships (PPPs). The private actors in these PPP arrangements areless of the earlier nongovernmental organizations but more of private corporations,engaging through their corporate social responsibility initiatives, large philanthropictrusts established by corporations, and entrepreneurial ventures in education. Animplicit acceptance of a diminished role of the state in managing, financing, andregulating elementary education, and a call for a greater need of private supportin these areas, has resulted in the private sector occupying a significant rolein redefining the expanded and diversified nature of the “private” in recent years.Srivastava et al. (2013) show how the Five-Year Plan documents encouraged a largerrole of the private in elementary education and the emerging scenario of PPPs inschool education.

This period also saw a sizeable increase in both the numbers of and enrolmentsin private schools across the country, particularly in urban areas (Desai et al. 2010;Srivastava et al. 2013). These changes have had consequences at multiple levels.Proponents of private schooling have claimed that low-cost private schools areviable options offering education of better quality than government schools for thepoorer sections while counterclaims have been made questioning the equity impli-cations of these schools and the notion of delivering quality with untrained teachersand inadequate facilities. At the other end, the under-resourced government schools


are now populated mainly by children from extremely marginalized sections ofthe population. The broader social and economic changes have also played out inthe lives of government school teachers who have increasingly started to identifythemselves with the aspirations of the middle classes, thereby distancing themselvesfrom the social groups currently accessing government schools and reinforcingdeficit assumptions about students based on their socioeconomic backgrounds(Mooij 2008). Current studies, therefore, reflect equity concerns arising from theoverrepresentation of marginalized groups in government schools and their under-representation in the private schools (Härmä 2011; Kamat et al. 2016). In thisscenario, quota-based provisioning of enrolments for the economically and sociallymarginalized sections in private schools under the Right of Children to Free andCompulsory Education Act, 2009, created conflicting dynamics, besides drawingcriticism as a means of encouraging backdoor privatization. The low-fee-payingschools that primarily operated by cutting costs on infrastructure and quality stan-dards came under the regulatory scanner; yet reports on private school closures forviolating infrastructure norms have been negligible. On the other hand, calls forrationalization of resources in government schools and mergers among existingschools have led to closure of significant number of government schools (Rao etal. 2016; Ramachandran and Reddy 2015).

These large-scale and fundamental shifts in policy since the late 1990s were borneout of the rapidly changing economic and political context, instead of any formal orcomprehensive review of the implementation of the National Policy on Education,1986, revised in 1992 (Dewan and Mehendale 2015). In 2015, the Ministry ofHuman Resource Development under the Government of India initiated the processof formulating a New Education Policy. After an initial committee submitted itsreport in 2016, a change in the Ministry led to the formation of a new committee witha mandate to review the previous report and submit a new report. The new committeesubmitted the Draft National Education Policy in May 2019 (MHRD 2019). In therealm of school education, the draft report has emphasized greater focus on earlychildhood care and education, foundational literacy and numeracy, and more publicinvestment in education. Building a professional cadre of school teachers has alsobeen underlined through a process of institutional overhaul, structured processes ofprofessional development and performance management, and appointment of onlyregular, trained teachers.

Legal Mandates and Remedies

Law governing school education in India is derived from the constitutionalprovisions, legislation adopted by central and state governments, and delegatedlegislation formulated by state governments called “Rules” to enforce the centrallegislation and amendments made to the Indian Constitution and legislation. Asper the Constitution, state legislation cannot be in conflict with the central legisla-tion, and none of the legislation can be inconsistent with the provisions of theConstitution. In addition, case law in the form of judgments of the Supreme Court


of India and the High Courts at the state level has also been a key source of legalprescription due to their binding nature (Article 141, Constitution of India). Thissection presents the legal frameworks related to school education in India and themechanisms for seeking legal remedies and grievance redressal.

Constitutional Provisions on Education

The Constitution of India is the supreme law and lays a strong foundation forrecognition of education rights. Although adopted in 1950, the Indian Constitutionhas been amended over a hundred times, making it a flexible and living document.Table 5 provides a summary of the key constitutional provisions related to educationrights.

The constitutional provisions provide for negative as well as positive rights.The provisions enable the government to undertake affirmative action for theeducational advancement of specific social groups, such as the reservation policyfor admission to higher education institutions. The fundamental right to education

Table 5 Key provisions of the Indian Constitution related to education

Part III of the ConstitutionFundamental rights: justiciable rights, and can be enforceable directly in the court of law

Article 15,15(4)

Prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex orplace of birthAllows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any sociallyand educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes

Article 21 A Provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to allchildren of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, bylaw, determine

Article 28 Provides that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educationalinstitution wholly maintained out of State funds unless it has been establishedunder an endowment or trust for imparting religious instructionProvides that no person attending any educational institution recognised by theState or receiving State funds shall be required to take part in any religiousinstruction at such an institution

Article 29(1) Provides that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educationalinstitution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds, on groundsonly of religion, race, caste, language or any of them

Article 30 Provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall havethe right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice

Part IV of the ConstitutionDirective Principles of State Policy are not enforceable by any court it is the duty of the State toapply these principles in making laws

Article 45 Provides that the state shall endeavour to provide early childhood care andeducation for all children until they complete the age of six years

Article 46 Provides for promotion of educational and economic interests of ScheduledCastes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections


places a constitutional binding duty on the State to provide education to childrenbetween 6 and 14 years and gives the children the fundamental right to claimeducation from the government. Schools that are maintained out of state fundsmust be secular, with the exception of schools that are required to provide religiousinstruction. The Indian Constitution upholds the rights of minorities to educationof their choice. The Supreme Court has held that institutions established andadministered by religious and linguistic minorities are exempted from the applica-bility of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009, which wasformulated to give effect to fundamental right to education (Article 21A) (seePramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1). TheIndian Constitution has a newly inserted Fundamental Duty (Article 51 A (k)) thatlays down the duty of every citizen of India, who is a parent or guardian, to provideopportunities for education to his child between the ages of 6 and 14 years. Althoughduties are not enforceable in a court of law, an explicit duty of parents and guardianstoward their children has been created as part of the Constitutional (Eighty-sixth)Amendment Act, 2002.

Legislation Related to Education

Within a federal structure with the central government and the state governmentshaving concurrent powers to legislate on matters pertaining to education, India has acorpus of legislation related to education. Laws related to education in India can beroughly categorized into six broad areas:

1. Legislation recognizing rights of children and specific groups of children toeducation. This includes Right of Children to Free and Compulsory EducationAct, 2009, and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

2. Legislation establishing statutory institutions that perform functions related tothe education sector. This includes the National Council for Teacher EducationAct, 1993; the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997; and theRehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992.

3. Legislation establishing monitoring bodies that perform watchdog functions.This includes Commissions for Protection of Rights of Children Act, 2005, orthe National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004.

4. Legislation specifying teacher service conditions. These are mostly adopted bystate legislatures and are applicable to teachers working within the state jurisdic-tion. Examples of such legislation are the Uttar Pradesh High Schools AndIntermediate Colleges (Payment Of Salaries Of Teachers And Other Employees)Act, 1971, and the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer ofTeachers) Act, 2007. This category also includes delegated legislation like theMadhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditionsof Services) Rules, 2008.

5. Legislation regulating private schools. These are adopted by state governments.Examples include Gujarat Self-Financed Schools (Regulation of Fees) Act, 2017,


or the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services)Regulation Act, 1977.

6. Legislation laying down norms and procedure for school-community relations.These are adopted by state governments depending on the extent to whichdecentralization has taken place and the extent to which local bodies and usergroups are involved in school governance. Examples include the Andhra PradeshSchool Education Management (Community Participation) Rules, 1998.

With education being a concurrent subject, state legislations allow the stategovernments to respond to situations that are contextually specific to the state andassert authority and power on matters that are of high stakes to the state govern-ments. State governments play a major role in legislation that governs teacheremployment, regulation of private schools, and language policy. For example,state-specific legislation regulating the private sector is different across statesdepending on the nature of the education market within a state and the prevailingstate-private sector dynamic. Rules on mother tongue education are also state-specific and are based on their local histories, politics, and discourse. Anotherimplication of education as a concurrent subject is the assertion of authority of thestate governments through the Rules or the delegated legislation. State governmentsuse their powers to delay or dilute the implementation of central legislation thatare not a priority for the state governments. For example, the enactment of the RTEAct by the central government was followed by delays from the state governmentson multiple fronts, including notification of the delegated legislation, allocation ofrequired resources, and adherence to the statutory timeframes (Mehendale 2010).State governments have attempted to dilute certain provisions of the RTE Actthrough the Rules formulated under the Act. For instance, the Gujarat Right ofChildren to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012, state that the norms andstandards laid in the Schedule of RTE Act can be relaxed if the school is able todemonstrate that the students have achieved the learning outcomes stipulated underRule 15. In a similar manner, the time limit for enforcing minimum qualificationsrequired to be a teacher has been extended by the central government in response toproposals from state governments requesting a grant of relaxation of the norms laiddown by the National Council for Teacher Education. The abovementioned exam-ples demonstrate prevailing tensions between the center and the state governments.

Legal Remedies and Administrative Redress

India has a robust system of judiciary, tribunals, and human rights institutions thatprovide legal remedies and administrative redress when legal provisions relatedto education are violated. Legal remedies include approaching the High Court orthe Supreme Court for violation of fundamental rights. The number of cases relatedto violation of education rights that have been filed before these courts has increasedsince the past decade. This increase can be attributed to greater awareness ofeducation rights and legal provisions on the one hand coupled with greater legal


activism and pro bono legal representation made available. However, lack of accessto justice and huge pendency of court cases has been a severe deterrent to aggrievedparties approaching the courts.

Tribunals are administrative bodies established for the purpose of discharg-ing quasi-judicial duties. Education tribunals are available in some states likeMaharashtra, Punjab, and Odisha for disposal of cases pertaining to service condi-tions of teachers and employees and issues with private education institutions.Although the tribunals were created to overcome delays and backlogs in the admin-istration of justice in regular courts, given the heavy litigation, the education tri-bunals are overloaded, and at the same time they are understaffed and at timeswithout a judge for chairing the tribunal. Hundreds of contempt of court proceedingsand service matters consume the middle-level state bureaucrats, education depart-ment functionaries, and private institutions.

In addition to the abovementioned remedies, grievance redress mechanisms areestablished under the RTE Act and entrust the local authority to attend to grievanceswithin 3 months of receiving a complaint. Bhattacharjee and Mysoor (2015) arguethat the grievance redress systems are perplexing, poorly designed, and have notimproved implementation of the RTE Act. The State Commissions for the Protectionof Child Rights have an original and appellate jurisdiction to hear grievances buthave lesser powers to implement their decisions compared to the local authorities(ibid.). The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights is entrusted withthe task of monitoring the protection of child rights and hears complaints of violationof right to education. However, lack of adequate staff, lack of autonomy andindependence from the government, and absence of an effective system to redressgrievances within government departments increase the load on the Commission andcompromise its ability to monitor violation of children’s rights (Sinha 2018).

Universalization of Education: Programs and Schemes

There were important changes in the policy framework on education during the1990s. The financial crisis of the early 1990s and the consequent structural adjust-ment program that India embarked upon provided a rationale for aid for primaryeducation from the World Bank. Prior to this, motivation for external assistance forprimary education projects such as the Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project,the Shiksha Karmi Project, and Mahila Samakhya Project was more in the formof learning from educational innovations elsewhere as compared to financial sup-port. From the 1990s, however, the nature of aid changed from such multiple smallprojects to large-scale program support by more donors (Colclough and De 2010).Understandably, the neoliberal turn of the larger polity at this juncture provideda suitable political climate for these and subsequent transitions (Kumar 2006;Ramachandran and Sharma 2009). This period also saw the beginnings of theDistrict Primary Education Program (DPEP), which brought in new structures andprocesses for project planning and management that were set up parallel to theexisting education department structures and processes. Over the decade of the


1990s, political compacts such as the World Conference on Education for All inJomtien in 1990 and the World Education Forum in Dakar in 2000 were also agreedupon. These international norms not only reinforced the agenda of universalizationof elementary education but also provided the grounds for the large-scale interna-tional donor-funded centrally sponsored scheme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, launched in2001, which became the principal vehicle to realize universalization of elementaryeducation.

In addition to the ongoing efforts in the realm of elementary education, thegovernment initiated the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) schemein the area of secondary education in 2009. In the year 2013–2014, four othercentrally sponsored schemes for secondary education, viz., ICT in Schools, Girls’Hostel, Vocationalization of Secondary and Senior Secondary Education, and Inclu-sive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage, were subsumed under the RMSA.

With these flagship programs being launched by the central government since the1990s, state governments came to be more dependent on funds coming from thesecentrally sponsored schemes. This financial dependence on centrally allocatedresources by some state governments was indicative of their poor resource genera-tion capacities, lack of prioritization of education within the state, as well as systemicinefficiencies. As a result, much of the initiatives at the state level came to align withthe priorities of these large-scale programs.

Understandably, the primary focus of these schemes was universal access andretention, along with the objective of bridging regional and social inequalities. Underthe SSA, impetus was given to provision of schools within a reasonable distancefrom habitations, construction of additional classrooms, and provision of residentialschools in remote areas. Other strategies common to these schemes are creation ofnew schools and alternative provisions of schooling; provision of basic physicalinfrastructure in the form of additional classrooms, toilets, and drinking water; andappointment of additional teachers and deployment of educational personnel foracademic support at the sub-district levels. The achievements of these strategies arenot negligible with enrolments reflecting near universalization and a significantdecrease in out-of-school children, even among the traditionally disadvantagedSCs and STs. Even the thrust of the RMSA at the secondary level was along similarlines.

Another program that has been widely reported to have enhanced access overthe same period is the midday meals in schools. Again, both the role of the civilsociety and the judiciary were crucial in terms of a directive being issued to all stategovernments by the Supreme Court of India in 2001 to start providing cookedmidday meals, thereby giving a boost to the already existing provision for thisunder a central government scheme initiated in 1995. In 2004, the central govern-ment provided a further boost to the scheme with enhanced budget allocations anda commitment to provide cooked nutritious midday meals in primary schools andthereafter an extension of this scheme to all government elementary schools. Studieshave shown that this scheme has had positive implications for school attendance,pupil achievements, and child nutrition (Drèze and Khera 2017). Currently, it isestimated to reach around 120 million children across 1.2 million schools in India.


With the centrally sponsored schemes like the DPEP and the Sarva ShikshaAbhiyan, new structures were created at different levels of the education adminis-tration system. The Block Resource Centre (BRC) and the Cluster Resource Centre(CRC), which serve as academic resource structures at the block and cluster level,were newly created under the DPEP with the twin purpose of improving quality ofeducation through both in-service teacher training and academic support to teachersand schools on a regular basis and helping in community mobilization activities.Some of these new structures that were created, like the DPEP and SSA societies atthe central and state level, ran parallel to the existing administrative structures thatexisted at these levels.

After the implementation of the RTE Act, it became imperative that the SSA bereoriented to align with the provisions of the RTE as well as be in consonance witha rights-based approach to educational entitlements and ideas of child-centerededucation underlined in the National Curriculum Framework (2005). Based on therecommendations of the Committee on Implementation of RTE Act and the ResultantRevamp of SSA, also known as the Bordia Committee, in 2010, a revised frameworkfor implementation of SSA (MHRD 2011) was effected. A primary idea of thisrevised framework was a convergent and integrated system of educational manage-ment that would eliminate the existence of parallel project structures. In 2018–2019,the overarching program for the school education sector, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan,extending from preschool to class 12 was prepared with the broader goal of improv-ing school effectiveness measured in terms of equal opportunities for schooling andequitable learning outcomes (MHRD 2018b). The scheme brings under its ambit thehitherto three different centrally sponsored schemes of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan(SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), and Teacher Education(TE). The vision of this Integrated Scheme on School Education is to ensureinclusive and equitable quality education from preschool to senior secondary stagein accordance with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for Education. Themain emphasis of the Integrated Scheme is on improving the quality of schooleducation, understood as enhancement of learning outcomes at all levels of school-ing, by focusing on teachers and technology.

Curriculum

With education as a concurrent subject, both central and state governments playa role in prescribing the curricular framework. At the central level, the academicauthority that prescribes the curriculum is the National Council for Education,Research and Training (NCERT), and at the state level, the academic authoritiesare the respective state councils as per the RTE Act, for the elementary stage.Curricula prescribed by these bodies inform textbooks, pedagogy, and examinationsand apply to schools that fall under their respective jurisdictions. State governmentsplay a key role in bringing about curricular transformation and quality improvement.

Sarangapani (2010) discusses how it was in the early 1990s during the DistrictPrimary Education Program (DPEP) that “‘quality’ first appeared as a specific


independent dimension of the education system, taking its place alongside accessand retention and forming a part of the planning process as an objective to beachieved” (p. 45). The move to achieve this has been through a more child-centeredcurriculum, but one in which “the achievement of basic literacy and numeracythrough greater teacher accountability and micro-managed mastery-learning curric-ula” has been prioritized over “professionalization of the teacher, teacher profes-sional development and resource support, and more constructivist curricula”(Sarangapani 2014, p. 4).

The idea of a child-centered curriculum received specific endorsement in theNational Curriculum Frameworks of 2000 and 2005, with the latter providing moredetailed guidelines on how a constructivist pedagogical approach and the localcontext of children could be incorporated in classroom teaching-learning processes.The experience of the extent to which this progressive framework has ultimatelybeen translated at the level of the schools is mixed. For one, this has been because ofthe absence of credible professional capacities and funding available with state-levelinstitutions such as the SCERTs that are mandated with translating the nationalcurricular framework and resources of the national-level curriculum planning insti-tution – the NCERT – into specific state-level curricular plans and resources. Alongwith this, the emergence of a stronger right-wing politics from the late 1990s led toa contestation around the secular and nationalist perspectives that defined curricularframeworks. This was and continues to be evident in the different textbooks usedacross different states and the perspectives they draw from, linked to politicalideologies; this contestation has been particularly significant in history and socialscience textbooks (Visweswaran et al. 2009; Sunny 2010).

The language policy has also been a contentious issue with increasing demandfor English-medium education, mounting pressure on state governments to offerEnglish as a medium of instruction or to offer it as a subject from Grade 1, and theneed to preserve the use of regional vernacular language education in governmentschools. Although the National Policy on Education, 1986, with revised formula-tions of 1992, reaffirmed the three-language formula (regional language, Hindi, andEnglish or international language) suggested by the 1968 policy, and althoughArticle 350 A of the Indian Constitution recommends instruction in mother tongueat the primary stage, and the RTE Act also recommends mother tongue to be themedium of instruction, as far as practicable, the implementation of these provisionshas been uneven. Sridhar (1996) argues that the mother tongue policy has beenharder to implement in small towns and rural areas where teachers may not beavailable for small numbers of children, including that of migrants, while triballanguages have been ignored in schools with state governments adopting amainstreaming approach. The exclusion and non-accommodation of minority lan-guages in education have led to low levels of literacy, capability deprivation, andperpetuation of inequalities (Mohanty 1990). Even though the National CurriculumFramework, 2005, made a strong case for mother tongue education, it has remainedunimplemented in early years of schooling (Mohanty et al. 2010). Furthermore,English has not equalized opportunities as projected but has reproduced inequalities(Annamalai 2005).


Teachers and Teacher Education

Since Independence, a number of policy documents and committees constitutedfor educational reforms in general, and teacher education in particular, including theEducation Commission (1964–1966) (National Council for Education Research andTraining 1970), the Chattopadhyaya Committee Report (1983–1985) (Governmentof India 1983), and the more recent National Curriculum Framework for TeacherEducation (2009) and the Report of the High-Powered Commission on TeacherEducation (Ministry of Human Resource Development 2012), have indicated howthe government teacher education system in India is saddled with multiple concerns:stand-alone character and isolation of teacher education institutions, particularly atthe elementary level, from the university system; the inadequate capacity of theteacher education institutions in terms of quality of teacher aspirants, teacher edu-cators, curriculum, and pedagogy (including lack of breadth and depth due to a short-duration focus); and the poor institutional capacity at the level of preparation ofteacher educators in terms of both dearth of institutions offering postgraduate pro-grams in education as well as the generalist and short-duration nature of existingprograms. Moreover, even though the role of teachers in the National CurriculumFramework 2005 was conceptualized as one of professionals with agency to proac-tively engage with curricular and assessment processes and changes, these were notaccompanied with clear directions for required changes in the teacher educationsystem in the National Curriculum Framework 2005. Thus, the only positive change,since 2014, has been the policy efforts to address at least the short-duration nature ofthe main teacher preparation program.

It is not as if there have not been important programmatic initiativesaround teacher education in recent decades. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme forRestructuring and Reorganization of Teacher Education initiated subsequent to theNPE 1986 and revised and strengthened in 2012, and the programmatic efforts underthe Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan(RMSA) are the more significant ones. These have resulted in a tiered institutionalstructure for teacher education and academic support at multiple levels, mainly theDIETs at the district level and block and cluster resource centers at the sub-districtlevel. Nonetheless, neither pre-service nor in-service teacher education has been ofany remarkable quality or import in the Indian context (Batra 2013). In-serviceteacher training programs for government school teachers have mainly followed atop-down cascade model and have been fixated more on targets than professionalneeds and capacities.

Also, the regulatory framework for teacher education under the National Councilfor Teacher Education – the national level statutory body for overseeing the teachereducation system – has itself been inadequate. This has resulted in an unprecedentedexpansion of the private teacher training institutions, with over 80% of TEIs beingprivate even though a predominant percentage of the children continue to be ingovernment schools. These poorly regulated private institutions are plagued with thesame problems as noted earlier for the government teacher education institutions.


A somewhat unrelated issue – the emergence and growth of a system of para-teachers (contractual teachers) – has also had implications for the quality of teachersand teacher education. The hiring of para-teachers came in the wake of an expansionof the elementary education system with the large-scale programs since the 1990sand the corresponding inability of the states to make provision of regular teachers forthis expansion due to their poor fiscal conditions. Subsequently, most states havecontinued to recruit both regular and para-teachers or recruit only para-teachers, witha consequent cadre of teachers with different employment norms and salary scales.Even the mandate of the Right to Education Act, to employ only teachers with properqualifications, has not been addressed as yet, and the government has continued toresort to extension of deadlines to meet such a mandate and seek convenientalternatives such as open online courses for unqualified teachers already within thesystem.

Examinations and Assessments

The National Curriculum Framework 2005, besides other progressive curricularand pedagogic changes, proposed the idea of Continuous and ComprehensiveEvaluation (CCE) in place of examinations that have been, in the Indian context,predominantly summative and strongly linked to rote-based learning rather thanan assessment of children’s higher-order cognitive skills. The Right of Children toFree and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, had provided for continuous compre-hensive assessments, non-detention of children in the same class, non-expulsionof children, and no requirement to pass board examinations till completion ofelementary education. However, the Right of Children to Free and CompulsoryEducation (Amendment) Act, 2019, introduced regular examinations for childrenin Classes 5 and 8 and provision to hold back students in these classes in the event oftheir failure to pass.

Concurrent with the above changes, an outcome-centric understanding of qualitystarted gathering strength in the education policyscape. The year-on-year large-scalelearning assessment survey undertaken by the Annual Status of Education Reports(ASER) played a strong role in this through its findings that showed achievements ofschool-going children are significantly below grade-specific learning levels. Thisidea of quality as measurable learning outcomes, along with ideas of efficiency andaccountability, has emerged mainly from empirical work on low-fee private schools,teachers’ attendance, and time-on-task. It has given rise to a set of contestedpositions on the very understanding of educational quality and policy solutionsthat should be adopted by the state. Broadly, on one side are economists and policyactors who contend that the government school system fares poorly on almost allcounts as compared to even low-fee private schools and advocate for a range ofmarket-based solutions such as increased private schooling in various forms, public-private partnerships, teacher proofing of curriculum, systems of control and incen-tives to ensure teacher efficiency, and school vouchers. On the other side of thedebate are educationists who have critiqued, both conceptually and empirically, the


narrow understanding of quality, and the strains of New Public Management theoriesevident in the positions of the former group (Sarangapani et al. 2018). This group, inturn, has called for systemic overhaul of the public school education system, with aspecific focus on teacher professional development.

The above contestations have also seen a reversal of some of the assessment-related reforms as proposed in NCF 2005 and mandated under the RTE, both at theelementary and secondary levels. At the elementary level, without adequate supportfor teachers, the CCE was implemented inadequately and the no-detention provisioninterpreted as a system of automatic progression of children from one grade to thenext despite non-achievement of grade-wise competencies. This led to a growingconcern, both in education administration and politically, about the efficacy of theseprogressive moves resulting in an amendment of the RTE Act that provides fora regular examination in classes V and VIII and an additional opportunity forreexamination of children who fail in 2 months’ time. Similarly, at the secondarylevel, the decision by the CBSE to shift from examinations to CCE for grade X in2011 was reversed in 2017. Overall, the call for periodically measuring learningoutcomes of children through large-scale assessments has gained ground as is visiblein related amendments to the RTE and recent policy directions of the government,including the policy statement from the national planning body – the NITI Aayog(Kundu 2018b).

The school system in India is also characterized by a number of differentexamination boards. The Central Board of Secondary Education comes under thepurview of MHRD and provides affiliations to both public and private schools andconducts final examinations for classes X and XII. The Council of Indian SchoolCertificate Examinations (CISCE) is a private, nongovernmental education boardwith affiliation of private schools and conducts examinations for both class X andXII. Most Indian schools are affiliated with the state government boards of therespective state, and these boards are regulated and supervised by the apex govern-ment organization for secondary and senior secondary education in the state.The National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) is another board, established bythe Ministry of Human Resource Development of the Government of India, toprimarily provide distance education inexpensively to remote areas. Besides these,schools affiliated to International Boards such as the International BaccalaureateOrganization (IBO) and Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) also operate inthe country; these are miniscule in number and often cater to elite population groups.As per recent reports (MHRD 2018a), the pass percentage in the class X examinationin 2016 under central and state boards was 78.7% (overall), somewhat lower forScheduled Castes at 73.2% and still lower for Scheduled Tribes at 65%. Similarly,for the class XII examination under central and state boards, the pass percentages in2016 were as follows, 77.9% (overall), 63.7% (SC), and 68.2% (ST).


Concluding Remarks

As compared to the early decades after Independence, school education in India hasseen a considerable amount of progress and churning since the 1990s. Undoubtedly,the school education system has significantly increased access to historically mar-ginalized groups in the recent decades. However, at the same time, existing inequal-ities of a differentiated (different types of schools) and stratified (schools that maponto differences in social and economic profiles of clientele population groups)school system have been made more complex. This is due to the rise in influenceof different types of private providers and that too in a system that can be said to becharacterized by de facto deregulation.

Instead of any visible long-term vision of educational change, the policy terrainhas more often than not been mediated by a diversity of political, economic,bureaucratic, and cultural pressures that interact with the school education systemat multiple levels in a democratic polity that itself is characterized by sharp differ-ences. Consequently, contradictory pulls and pressures are evident for almost alldefining features of the school education system. So, progressive curricular andpedagogic reforms at one end have come with very little investment in a properinstitutional system of teacher education and growth of para-teachers on the otherend. Similarly, endorsement of a rights-based approach and a more equitable edu-cation system on the one end has come with inadequate financial commitments toback such endorsements. Worryingly, in such a situation, much of current policyideas have veered toward proverbial silver bullet solutions. Whether educationreforms in India will continue to be underlined by these same contradictions andchallenges in the years to come or they will come to tackle the more fundamentalsystemic challenges that have been underlined in almost all national policy docu-ments on education remains to be seen.

References

Ambast, S., Gaur, A., & Sangai, A. (2017). Regulation of private schools in India. New Delhi:Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

Annamalai, E. (2005). Nation building in a globalized world: Language choice and education inIndia. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-educationpolicy and practice (pp. 21–38). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Basu, A. (1974). The growth of education and political development in India, 1898–1920.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Basu, A. (1982). Essays in the history of Indian education. New Delhi: Concept.Batra, P. (2013). Positioning teachers in the emerging education landscape of contemporary India.

In India infrastructure report 2012: Private sector in education (pp. 219–231). New Delhi:Routledge.

Bhattacharjee, M., & Mysoor, D. (2015). “Unredressed” grievances under RTE: Navigating thestate labyrinth. Governance, 29(1), 31–45.

Bhattacharya, S., Bara, J., & Yagati, C. R. (Eds.). (2003). Educating the nation: Documents on thediscourse of national education in India, 1880–1920. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers.


Chaudhary, L. (2010). Land revenues, schools and literacy. The Indian Economic & Social HistoryReview, 47(2), 179–204.

Colclough, C., & De, A. (2010). The impact of aid on education policy in India. InternationalJournal of Educational Development, 30(5), 497–507.

Dale, R. (1997). The state and the governance of education: An analysis of the restructuring of thestate – Education relationship. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Well (Eds.),Education: Culture, economy and society (pp. 273–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Desai, S., Dubey, A., Joshi, B. L., Sen, M., Shariff, A., & Vanneman, R. (2010). Human develop-ment in India: Challenges for a society in transition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Dewan, H., & Mehendale, A. (2015). Towards a new education policy. Economic and PoliticalWeekly, 50(48), 15–18.

Dongre, A. A., & Kapur, A. (2016). Trends in public expenditure on elementary education in India.Economic and Political Weekly, 51(39), 23–25.

Drèze, J., & Khera, R. (2017). Recent social security initiatives in India. World Development,98, 555–572.

Dubey, M. (2007). Road map of a common school system in Bihar. Economic and Political Weekly,42(29), 2999–3005.

Government of India. (1983). The teacher and society: Report of the National Commission onTeacher-I (Chattopadhyaya Committee report). New Delhi: Ministry of Education.

Govinda, R., & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2011). Local governance and community participation inelementary education. In R. Govinda (Ed.), Who goes to school? Exploring exclusion in Indianeducation (pp. 248–285). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Härmä, J. (2011). Low cost private schooling in India: Is it pro poor and equitable? InternationalJournal of Educational Development, 31(4), 350–356.

Jain, M. (2018). Public, private and education in India: A historical overview. In M. Jain, A.Mehendale, R. Mukhopadhyay, P. M. Sarangapani, & C. Winch (Eds.), School education inIndia: Market, state and quality (pp. 31–66). London: Routledge.

Juneja, N. (2003). Constitutional amendment to make education a fundamental right (Occasionalpaper). New Delhi: National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration.

Juneja, N. (2018). Education in Urban Areas. In Krishna Kumar (ed.) Routledge Handbook ofEducation in India: Debates, Practices and Policies (pp. 26–42). London: Routledge.

Kamat, S., Spreen, C. A., & Jonnalagadda, I. (2016). Profiting from the poor: The emergenceof multinational edu-businesses in Hyderabad, India. A report for Education International.Brussels: Education International. Retrieved from https://www.unite4education.org/resources/india/profiting-from-the-poor-the-emergenceof-multinational-edu-businesses-in-hyderabad-india/. On 17 July 2019.

Kumar, K. (2005). Political agenda of education: A study of colonialist and nationalist ideas.New Delhi: Sage.

Kumar, R. (2006). Introduction: Equality, quality and quantity – Mapping the challenges beforeelementary education in India. In R. Kumar (Ed.), The crisis of elementary education in India(pp. 13–56). New Delhi: Sage.

Kumar, K., Priyam, M., & Saxena, S. (2001). Looking beyond the smokescreen: DPEP and primaryeducation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(7), 560–568.

Kundu, P. (2018a). Budgeting for school education: What has changed and what has not?: Analysisof six states in the 14th Finance Commission recommendation period. New Delhi: Centre forBudget and Governance Accountability (CBGA) and Child Rights and You (CRY). Retrievedfrom http://www.cbgaindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Budgeting-for-School-Education-What-Has-Changed-and-What-Has-Not.pdf. Accessed 7 Apr 2019.

Kundu, P. (2018b). NITI Aayog’s ‘Three Year Action Agenda’. Economic and Political Weekly,53(18), 21–24.

Mehendale, A. (2005). Right to education and constitutional amendment: A case of India. Revisedfinal project report, Global Development Network’s Bridging Research and Policy Programme.


https://www.unite4education.org/resources/india/profiting-from-the-poor-the-emergenceof-multinational-edu-businesses-in-hyderabad-india/



http://www.cbgaindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Budgeting-for-School-Education-What-Has-Changed-and-What-Has-Not.pdf

http://www.cbgaindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Budgeting-for-School-Education-What-Has-Changed-and-What-Has-Not.pdf

Mehendale, A. (2010). Model rules for the Right to Education Act. Economic and Political Weekly,45(4), 9–12.

Mehendale, A., & Mukhopadhyay, R. (2018). Regulatory state and the diversified private. In M.Jain, A. Mehendale, R. Mukhopadhyay, P. M. Sarangapani, & C. Winch (Eds.), Schooleducation in India: Market, state and quality (pp. 104–122). London: Routledge.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (1992). National Policy on Education 1986with revised policy formulations 1992. Government of India. Retrieved from http://www.ncert.nic.in/oth_anoun/npe86.pdf. On 8 Feb 2019.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2011). Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Frameworkfor implementation: Based on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,2009. Government of India. Retrieved from http://seshagun.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-05/SSA-Frame-work_0.pdf. On 24 July 2019.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (2012). Vision of Teacher Education in India: Qualityand Regulatory Perspective. Report of the High Powered Commission on Teacher EducationConstituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Vol. 1, II, III.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2014). Selected information on schooleducation 2011–12. New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved from http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/SISH201112.pdf. On 8 Feb 2019.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2018a). Educational statistics at a glance.New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved from https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/ESAG-2018.pdf. On 17 July 2019.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2018b). Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan,An integrated scheme for school education: Framework for implementation. Governmentof India. Retrieved from http://seshagun.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-05/smsa.pdf. On 24July 2019.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2019). Draft National Education Policy2019. Government of India. Retrieved from https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf. On 25 July 2019.

Mohanty, A. K. (1990). Psychological consequences of mother-tongue maintenance andthe language of literacy for linguistic minorities in India. Psychology and Developing Societies,2(1), 31–50.

Mohanty, A. K., Panda, M., & Pal, R. (2010). Language policy in education and classroom practicesin India: Is the teacher a cog in the policy wheel? In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiatinglanguage policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 211–231). New York/London:Routledge.

Mooij, J. (2008). Primary education, teachers’ professionalism and social class about motivationand demotivation of government school teachers in India. International Journal of EducationalDevelopment, 28(5), 508–523.

Mukhopadhyay, R., Ramkumar, N., & Vasavi, A. R. (2017). Management of elementary education:Structures and strategies. In R. Govinda & M. Sedwal (Eds.), India education report: Progressof basic education (pp. 151–169). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Naik, J. P. (1970). Union-State relations in education: Their implications for educational adminis-tration. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 16(3), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119700310. Retrieved 17 July 2019.

National Council for Education Research and Training (NCERT). (1970). Education andnational development: Report of the Education Commission 1964–1966 (Kothari Commission).New Delhi: NCERT.

National Council for Education Research and Training (NCERT). (2005). National curriculumframework 2005. Government of India. Retrieved from www.ncert.nic.in/rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/nf2005.pdf. On 17 July 2019.

National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA). (2018). School educationin India: U-DISE flash statistics 2016–17 (Provisional). New Delhi: NIEPA and MHRD, GoI.


http://www.ncert.nic.in/oth_anoun/npe86.pdf

http://www.ncert.nic.in/oth_anoun/npe86.pdf

http://seshagun.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-05/SSA-Frame-work_0.pdf

http://seshagun.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-05/SSA-Frame-work_0.pdf

http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/SISH201112.pdf

http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/SISH201112.pdf

https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/ESAG-2018.pdf

https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/ESAG-2018.pdf

http://seshagun.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-05/smsa.pdf

https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf

https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119700310

https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119700310

http://www.ncert.nic.in/rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/nf2005.pdf

http://www.ncert.nic.in/rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/nf2005.pdf

NCTE. (2009). National Curriculum Framework for teacher education: Towards preparingprofessional and humane teacher. New Delhi: NCTE.

Niranjanaradhya, V. P. (2014). Community participation and institutional experiences in schooleducation: School development and monitoring committees in Karnataka. New Delhi: OxfamIndia. Retrieved from https://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/wp-community-participation-and-institutional-experience-in-school-education_0_0.pdf. On 24 July 2019.

Nurullah, S., & Naik, J. P. (1971). A students’ history of education in India (1800–1965). Calcutta:Macmillan.

Rajesh, K. (2018). Public provisioning of elementary education in India: Some issues around publicfinancing (Policy brief). New Delhi: Oxfam India. Retrieved from https://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/PB_Eduation%20Finance_Final_0.pdf. On 17 July 2019.

Ramachandran, V. (2009). Systemic barriers to equity in education. In P. Rustagi (Ed.), Concerns,conflicts, and cohesions: Universalization of elementary education in India (pp. 125–149).New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ramachandran, V., & Naorem, T. (2012). Inclusion and exclusion of students in schoolsand in the classroom in primary and upper primary schools: Nation synthesis report. Reportcommissioned by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, MHRD, Government of India. Technical SupportGroup, EdCIL India Limited. Retrieved from http://www.eruindia.org/files/National%20Synthesis%20Inclusion-exclusion%20study%20Formated%20final%201%20Oct%202012.pdf. On 17July 2019.

Ramachandran, V., & Reddy, A. N. (2015). Status report on closure of schools after RTE Act2009. National Coalition for Education. Retrieved from http://www.eruindia.org/files/Status%20Report%20RTE%202016.pdf. On 7 Feb 2019.

Ramachandran, V., & Sharma, R. (2009). Introduction. In R. Sharma & V. Ramachandran (Eds.),The elementary education system in India: Exploring institutional structures, processes anddynamics (pp. 1–32). New Delhi: Routledge.

Ramachandran, V., Patni, R., Kompalli, S., Jandhyala, K., Patni, B., & Mehrotra, N. (2013). Schoolmanagement for quality inclusive education and decentralised school governance. EuropeanUnion, NUEPA and Save the Children (India). Retrieved from http://www.eruindia.org/files/school-management-09-04-13.pdf. On 17 July 2019.

Rao, S. S., Ganguly, S., Singh, J., & Dash, R. R. (2016). School closures and mergers: A multi-statestudy of policy and its impact on public education system Telangana, Odisha and Rajasthan.Save the Children. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320056186_School_Closures_and_Mergers_A_Multi-state_study_of_policy_and_its_impact_on_public_education_system_-_Telangana_Odisha_and_Rajasthan_2017. On 7 Feb 2019.

Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan. (n.d.). Accelerating progress towards RMSA goals:Analysis and way forward for change. Retrieved from http://rmsaindia.gov.in/administrator/components/com_pdf/pdf/4916dd98392656518f95da593c15090e-Accelerating-Progress-towards-RMSA-goals%2D%2D-Analysis-and-Way-Forward-for-Change%2D%2Dv6-.pdf. On 8Feb 2019.

Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan-Technical Cooperation Agency (RMSA-TCA). (2015).Demographic transition and education planning. Retrieved from http://rmsaindia.gov.in/administrator/components/com_pdf/pdf/5a542a1c93564e25de3ded7e73902e4c-Demographic-transition-and-education-planning-final.pdf. On 8 Feb 2019.

Sarangapani, P. M. (2010). Quality concerns: National and extra-national dimensions.Contemporary Education Dialogue, 7(1), 41–57.

Sarangapani, P. M. (2014). Knowledge, curricula, and teaching methods: The case of India. Revueinternationale d’éducation de Sèvres. Retrieved from: https://journals.openedition.org/ries/3851. On 17 July 2019.

Sarangapani, P., Mukhopadhyay, R., Parul, & Jain, M. (2018). Recovering the practice andprofession of teaching. In M. Jain, A. Mehendale, R. Mukhopadhyay, P. M. Sarangapani, &C. Winch (Eds.), School education in India: Market, state and quality (pp. 123–138). London:Routledge.


https://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/wp-community-participation-and-institutional-experience-in-school-education_0_0.pdf

https://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/wp-community-participation-and-institutional-experience-in-school-education_0_0.pdf

https://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/PB_Eduation%20Finance_Final_0.pdf

https://www.oxfamindia.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/PB_Eduation%20Finance_Final_0.pdf

http://www.eruindia.org/files/National%20Synthesis%20Inclusion-exclusion%20study%20Formated%20final%201%20Oct%202012.pdf

http://www.eruindia.org/files/National%20Synthesis%20Inclusion-exclusion%20study%20Formated%20final%201%20Oct%202012.pdf

http://www.eruindia.org/files/Status%20Report%20RTE%202016.pdf

http://www.eruindia.org/files/Status%20Report%20RTE%202016.pdf

http://www.eruindia.org/files/school-management-09-04-13.pdf

http://www.eruindia.org/files/school-management-09-04-13.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320056186_School_Closures_and_Mergers_A_Multi-state_study_of_policy_and_its_impact_on_public_education_system_-_Telangana_Odisha_and_Rajasthan_2017



http://rmsaindia.gov.in/administrator/components/com_pdf/pdf/4916dd98392656518f95da593c15090e-Accelerating-Progress-towards-RMSA-goals%2D%2D-Analysis-and-Way-Forward-for-Change%2D%2Dv6-.pdf



http://rmsaindia.gov.in/administrator/components/com_pdf/pdf/5a542a1c93564e25de3ded7e73902e4c-Demographic-transition-and-education-planning-final.pdf



https://journals.openedition.org/ries/3851

https://journals.openedition.org/ries/3851

Sinha, S. (2018). Reflections about the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. In S.Raha, A. Mehendale, S. Sinha, & N. Nayak (Eds.), Essays on Commissions for Protectionof Child Rights in India (pp. 76–88). Bangalore: Centre for Child and the Law. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nls.ac.in/ccl/publications/CCLMonographJuly2018.pdf. On 7 Feb 2019.

Sridhar, K. K. (1996). Language in education: Minorities and multilingualism in India.International Review of Education, 42(4), 327–347.

Srivastava, P. (2008). The shadow institutional framework: Towards a new institutional under-standing of an emerging private school sector in India. Research Papers in Education, 23(4),451–475.

Srivastava, P., Noronha, C., & Fennell, S. (2013). Private sector study: Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.Report submitted to DFID, India.

Sunny, Y. (2010). Communalisation of education. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(23), 21–24.Tilak, J. B. G. (2007). The Kothari Commission and financing of education. Economic and Political

Weekly, 42(10), 874–882.Tilak, J. B. G. (2018). Education and development in India: Critical issues in public policy and

development. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.Tooley, J., & Dixon, P. (2005). An inspector calls: The regulation of “budget” private schools

in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Educational Development,25(3), 269–285.

Union Government (Civil), Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2017). Report ofthe comptroller and auditor general of India on implementation of Right of Children toFree and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 for the year ended March 2016. Report No. 23 of2017. Retrieved from https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Report_No.23_of_2017_%E2%80%93_Compliance_audit_Union_Government_Implementation_of_Right_of_Children_to_Free_and_Compulsory_Education_Act%2C_2009.pdf. On 8 Feb 2019.

Velaskar, P. (2010). Quality and inequality in Indian education some critical policy concerns.Contemporary Education Dialogue, 7(1), 58–93.

Visweswaran, K., Witzel, M., Manjrekar, N., Bhog, D., & Chakravarti, U. (2009). The Hindutvaview of history: Rewriting textbooks in India and the United States. Georgetown Journalof International Affairs, 10(1), 101–112.


https://www.nls.ac.in/ccl/publications/CCLMonographJuly2018.pdf

https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Report_No.23_of_2017_%E2%80%93_Compliance_audit_Union_Government_Implementation_of_Right_of_Children_to_Free_and_Compulsory_Education_Act%2C_2009.pdf

