Education crisis: Don’t let fads disrupt the fundamentals of learning
State-wise educational outcomes in India don’t differ much by prosperity. Getting schooling right has more to do with how consistently a state sticks to the basics of education— regardless of administrative shifts. Here’s the formula.
Even if we focus narrowly on the most basic education outcomes—whether children can do simple mathematics or read and write with comprehension—the variations across Indian states are striking. These differences aren’t merely between states; they exist within them as well. But inter-state disparities are particularly revealing because they point to systemic strengths and failures that go beyond economic development.
If richer states always performed better, broad parts of the explanation may have been more straightforward. But that isn’t the case. Some economically weaker states outperform wealthier ones, while others with ample resources struggle. This suggests something deeper at play. Governance, policy consistency and, most of all, execution may matter far more than financial capacity alone.
Also Read: Implement educational reforms in honour of Dr Kasturirangan (1940-2025)
Over the past 25 years, having worked closely with education systems across more than 20 states, one lesson stands out for me—the states that have improved learning outcomes are those that have stayed persistently focused on the fundamentals. This may sound obvious, yet it is often ignored in the rush for flashy reforms. The difference lies not in grand innovations, but in getting the basics right, year after year, without distraction.
Consider teacher recruitment. India’s better-performing states have ensured an adequate number of teachers in primary schools through regular and transparent appointments—not short-term contracts. By selecting teachers through competitive public examinations, they have minimized corruption in hiring. Since government teaching jobs are highly sought after, this approach has also raised the academic quality of new recruits. Over time, the impact compounds. States that have followed this approach for nearly two decades now have a teaching workforce that is not just sufficient in terms of its size, but also reasonably competent and motivated.
Compare this to states where teachers are hired on contract, often leading to low morale and disengagement from work. A difference in outcomes is inevitable.
Also Read: India’s consensus on school education makes space for optimism
Then there are the operational basics—textbooks reaching schools on time, minimal disruptions to academic schedules and examinations held regularly. These may seem like minor details, but their absence cripples learning. Textbook delays could mean months of wasted time. Frequent school closures for non-academic reasons reduce instructional days. Irregular examinations mar the progress of academic sessions. States that have systematically addressed these issues have created stable environments where teaching and learning can actually happen. It’s unglamorous work, but it works.
Teacher support is another critical factor. Higher-performing states haven’t just trained their teachers; they’ve built better systems for continuous support.
Academic resource personnel at the cluster level provide hands-on support and guidance, not just one-off workshops. Training programmes are refined over time based on feedback, making them more relevant to classroom realities and the actual practice of teaching. Deliberate efforts have been made to form peer-learning teacher communities. This creates a culture of professional growth rather than one of box-ticking compliance.
Also Read: Focus on foundational literacy and numeracy to improve educational outcomes
Most often, all these things have been done with mediocrity—even by these better performing states. But what has really mattered is consistency: the ability to stay the course without being derailed by the short-term whims of those in power or fads sold by the ‘education reform’ industry. Too many states lurch from one new mission to another, often announcing grand schemes only to abandon them when the next idea comes along.
The better performers resist this churn. They focus on improving the same few fundamentals—teacher quality, operational discipline and support systems—year after year, regardless of changing governments or officials. Each year, what is being done seems mediocre, but is just that tiny bit better than earlier. Over time, this makes a significant difference to learning outcomes.
A subtext of all this has been that many of these states have not waged political battles on the matter of education with the Union government, and vice versa. Even if they have had stated differences in public, behind the scenes they have had functional working relationships. And this has not to do with any one political party or formation. In the past 25 years, we have seen a lot of changes in who controls which government.
Also Read: Invest heavily in education: It’s the cornerstone of a Viksit Bharat
All this points to a basic truth: the states that do well in education often have a broader and deeper culture of disciplined governance. Whether in public health, infrastructure or law and order, they tend to prioritize the fundamentals and execution over the fancy and narrative-focused. That ethos reflects in education too—a long-term commitment to basics, not quick fixes.
None of this is to say that Indian states that are doing better on education have solved India’s educational crisis. Far from it. But they have shown what’s possible when a system refuses to neglect the obvious.
The lesson for other states is clear: stop chasing the next big idea. Focus on teachers, basic systems and execution. Do it patiently, without distraction, and for decades on end. The results will follow in good time. It’s not glamorous work, but it’s the only thing that ever works.
The author is CEO of Azim Premji Foundation.
topics
