Editorial 1: NEP 2020 in the classroom, from policy to practice

Context

Observations from 24 classrooms across eight states in India indicate some level of change.

Introduction

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 emphasizes the importance of every child learning basic reading, writing, and math skills (Foundational Literacy and Numeracy – FLN) as a top priority. Since the policy was introduced, both the central and state governments have worked hard on programs to ensure that all children develop these skills by the end of Class 2, which is now considered the ‘foundational stage’ for children aged 3 to 8.

• The recently released Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2024 highlights how education policies are reaching individual schools.
• Over 80% of the 15,728 rural schools surveyed reported receiving government directives to implement Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (FLN) activities for Classes 1 to 3.
• More than 75% of these schools had at least one teacher who received in-person training on FLN.

There is an awareness

Key Findings from Classroom Observations (Class 2) in Eight States

Findings	Details
Implementation of FLN	Observations in 24 Class 2 classrooms showed how FLN policies are being applied in practice.
Teacher Awareness	Teachers understood the importance of FLN, indicating that the message had been effectively communicated.
Positive Reception	Most teachers across the eight states recognized and supported the new FLN focus.
Attitudinal Shifts	Changes in mindset were evident in classrooms, even when new teaching techniques were not required.
Context-Specific Challenges	Teaching strategies varied based on classroom conditions, such as space limitations and mixed-grade setups.
Training Gaps	Many teachers reported few opportunities to discuss practical challenges during training sessions.
Need for Practice & Discussion	Creating spaces for teachers to practice, discuss, and adapt strategies may help improve implementation.

Support for teachers

• Variation Across States: The level and type of support available to teachers after training differ significantly.
• Lack of Support: Some teachers reported having no access to any post-training assistance.
• Consultation Availability: In some states, trainers were available for teachers to consult when needed.
• Monitoring Focus:
  • In certain states, officials conducted regular monitoring visits.
  • However, these visits primarily focused on data collection compliance rather than improving teaching-learning practices.
• Hands-On Demonstrations:
  • Only a few teachers received classroom demonstrations from block- or district-level officials on how to implement FLN activities.

Types of Post-Training Support Across States

Type of Support	Description
No Support	Some teachers could not identify any available assistance after training.
Consultation-Based Support	Trainers were available for consultation if teachers sought help.
Monitoring Visits	Officials ensured FLN focus was maintained, but with an emphasis on data collection rather than teaching methods.
Demonstration Support	Few teachers experienced hands-on guidance from block- or district-level officials.

Challenges in Using Teaching-Learning Materials (TLM)

• Limited Student Engagement:
  • Teachers understood the importance of TLM, but it was mostly used in demonstration mode by the teacher, rather than being actively handled by students.
• Practical Barriers to Effective TLM Use:

Challenge	Details
Material Damage Concerns	Teachers who created their own TLM feared it would get damaged, requiring them to remake it.
Storage Issues	Some classrooms lacked adequate space to store TLM.
Unclear Usage Guidelines	Teachers with ready-made TLM kits were often unsure how and when to integrate them into lessons.

• Key Takeaway: For effective FLN implementation, teachers need ongoing post-training support, hands-on practice opportunities, and clear guidance on adapting materials to classroom needs.

Issue of syllabus completion

• Syllabus-Driven Teaching:
  • Teaching decisions are still primarily based on syllabus completion, rather than adapting to students’ learning needs.
• Assessment Practices:
  • Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) is mostly curriculum-focused and conducted through traditional pen-and-paper tests.
  • Many teachers reported conducting monthly FLN-specific assessments, but few used the results to adjust their classroom practices.
• Unresolved Challenge:
  • There is a fundamental conflict between ensuring universal FLN and completing the syllabus, which remains unaddressed at a system-wide level.

Assessment Methods Across States

Assessment Type	Description
Traditional CCE Assessments	Focuses on syllabus-based formative and summative tests using pen-and-paper.
FLN-Specific Monthly Tests	Conducted in several states, but results are rarely used to improve teaching methods.
Limited Data Utilization	Teachers do not actively integrate assessment insights into daily classroom instruction.

Progress Since the Launch of NIPUN Bharat

• Positive Changes Noted:
  • The National Initiative for Proficiency in Reading with Understanding and Numeracy (NIPUN) Bharathas provided clear guidelines on FLN implementation.
  • Increased visibility of FLN in schools and among teachers marks significant progress.
• Impact on Learning Levels:
  • For the first time in 20 years, the ASER survey has recorded improvements in foundational learning levels nationwide.
  • This progress has been largely driven by government schools.
• Key Takeaway: To sustain these gains, the FLN focus must continue, with a shift towards using assessment insights to improve teaching practices while balancing syllabus completion requirements.

Conclusion

The NEP 2020 has successfully increased awareness and implementation of FLN in classrooms, as seen in improved foundational learning levels. However, challenges like syllabus-driven teaching, inadequate post-training support, and ineffective TLM usage persist. Sustained focus on teacher training, flexible assessments, and practical implementation strategies is essential for long-term success.

Editorial 2: Thinking beyond population count

Context

The time has come to go beyond population size as the lone yardstick of allocation and determination of political representation

Introduction

The discussion on delimitation and financial devolution has caused a stir in Parliament and some State Assemblies, raising concerns about the federal structure of our country. The development gap in India also impacts the demographic divide, which should be considered in decisions about delimitation and financial devolution. The end of the constitutional freeze on the number of parliamentary seats is approaching, creating worries about the political representation of peninsular States and those in the north.

Impact of Population Growth on Lok Sabha Representation and Delimitation

• Between 1951 and 1971, the number of Lok Sabha seats in India was increased to match the rising population, improving population representation per seat.
• The population per seat increased from 7.3 lakh in 1951 to 10.1 lakh in 1971, when the number of seats reached the current total of 543.
• The freeze on the number of seats has been in place since 1971 and will last until 2026.
• Based on the population growth trend, the total number of seats in 2026 is projected to be 753, with the population representation per seat expected to rise to around 20 lakh.
• With this higher ratio, peninsular States could have a reduced share of seats compared to states like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, which are lagging in demographic progress.

Political representation

• The concern about political representation is real and was first addressed by the 15th Finance Commission.
• The Commission faced this issue when the population weight in the devolution exercise was shifted from 1971 data to 2011 data.
• The Commission recommended adding weightage for demographic performance alongside population performance.
• As a result, the population component’s weight was increased from 0.15 to 0.27.
• This adjustment aims to balance the representation between States with high populations but poor demographic performance and States with lower populations but better demographic outcomes.

Reevaluating Population Size as the Sole Basis for Political Representation

• The time has come to move beyond using population size as the only criterion for allocation and political representation.
• The argument that southern States will not lose seats while northern States will gain seats during the delimitation exercise is flawed.
• There are multiple concerns to address in the delimitation process:
  1. Average Representation of Population:
     • Should every seat represent an average 20 lakh population?
     • Consideration of adopting an upper limit for representational strength, ensuring the Lok Sabha size expands with population growth.
  2. Regional Distribution:
     • The focus is on regional distribution without distorting representation too much.
     • A possible middle ground could be using population density rather than absolute population numbers.
  3. Population Density as a Factor:
     • Population density could be a better measure, especially in regions like the northeast, where lower population size is balanced by higher population density compared to urban areas.
     • This method could lead to a more equitable representation.
  4. Status Quo and Adjustments:
     • Maintaining the current system may still require a proportional increase in seat allocation.
     • A target with an aggregate population representation per seat could be set to guide these changes.

Comparison of Options for Population Representation

Option	Description
Current System (Status Quo)	Maintain the same number of seats, adjusting for population growth.
Average Population per Seat	Set a fixed representation, such as 20 lakh per seat, with an upper limit.
Population Density	Focus on population density rather than absolute population for distribution.
Regional Adjustments	Consider regions like the northeast with lower populations but higher density.

Rethinking Population Count as the Sole Basis for Allocation and Devolution

• The demographic wisdom suggests moving beyond population count as the only criterion for allocation or devolution.
• In the 15th Finance Commission’s devolution exercise, this was debated, leading to the introduction of demographic performance in the population component.
• A crucial consideration is the characteristics and composition of the population, not just the raw numbers.
• The proposed delimitation and allocation exercise must account for gender and caste-based reservations, adding complexity to the process.
• Standardizing based on population count leads to misleading per capita measures, often failing to reflect real needs.
• This trend is becoming more prevalent in the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) environment, where indicators are often generated indiscriminately.
• The per-capita hangover creates problems in making scientific comparisons across time or regions.
• Characteristics and composition of the population are vital for assessing needs, entitlements, rights, and privileges.
• Using raw population count without considering these differences results in treating unequals as equals.

Issues with Population Count as a Sole Criterion

Issue	Explanation
Population-Based Standardization	Relying solely on population count leads to misleading per capita measures.
Ignoring Population Characteristics	The composition (e.g., gender, caste) affects needs and entitlements.
Per-Capita Hangover	The trend of using per capita indicators without considering specific features.
Misleading Comparisons	Population count-based measures make scientific comparisons difficult.
Unequal Treatment	Raw population count ignores characteristic differences, treating unequals as equals.

Conclusion: A demographic outlook

Studying a population demographically means looking at all its characteristics to compare and understand differences, not just counting people. Population is more than just numbers—it affects representation and resource distribution, which is often ignored. That’s why a demographic perspective is crucial for addressing ongoing debates and issues.