Education in state list: Should it be restored?

India’s education system has evolved significantly from the ancient Gurukula system to a modern, structured system influenced by colonial rule and post-independence reforms. Recent years have seen debate about whether education in state list should be brought back. Read here to learn more about the discussion.

The recent controversies surrounding exams like NEET-UG and UGC-NET have reignited the debate on whether education should be transferred back to the state list.

Under the Government of India Act, of 1935, education was under the Provincial Legislative List.

Post-Independence, initially, education was on the State List of the Seventh Schedule.

In, 1976 the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, following the Swaran Singh Committee’s recommendation, moved education to the Concurrent List without explicit reasons.

Table of Contents

When was education added to the Concurrent List?

Education was originally a state subject in India under the Government of India Act 1935.

👉 Which year are YOU targeting for success in the IAS/IPS/IFS Exam? 🚀

• However, during the Constitutional Amendment 1976 (42nd Amendment), education was moved to the Concurrent List.
• This allowed both the central and state governments to legislate on matters concerning education.
• The 44th Constitutional Amendment attempted to revert some of these changes but was not fully implemented.

Education in State List: should it be restored?

According to the constitution, education was envisaged as a state subject as local governments are better suited to address educational needs according to regions.

• Regional Autonomy: States have diverse educational needs and challenges. Restoring education in State List would allow for tailored policies that address local contexts and issues.
• Efficient Administration: State governments can potentially manage education more efficiently as they are closer to the ground realities and can implement policies with better local oversight.
• Innovation and Experimentation: States could experiment with innovative educational models and policies, leading to diverse and potentially more effective solutions to educational challenges.
• Differing policies: Policies at the national level, such as the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) and the National Education Policy (NEP), frequently clash with those from the states, resulting in inefficiency and disenfranchisement.
• Merit in exams: NEET and other centralised entry examinations may not accurately represent the abilities or qualities of individuals from a variety of educational backgrounds.
• States need to be free to create admission requirements that more accurately identify and develop each applicant’s potential.
• The notion that common admission examinations do not determine merit is supported by the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act 2006, which has been affirmed by both the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court noted that grades are not the decisive element of merit in the case of Neil Aurelio Nunes and others v. Union of India and others.

Arguments for Keeping Education on the Concurrent List

The ASER 2023 report highlighted shortfallings in the primary education system, such as approximately 25% of teens in the 14-18 age group cannot read a Grade 2 level text fluently, highlighting significant challenges in basic literacy skills

• Uniformity in Education Standards: A national framework ensures uniform standards across states, which is crucial for maintaining quality and equity in education.
• Resource Allocation: The central government can provide additional resources and funding to states that may lack the financial capacity to support their educational systems independently.
• National Integration: A unified educational policy promotes national integration and a cohesive educational structure, ensuring that students across the country have access to similar educational opportunities.

How Do Other Countries Govern Education?

• United States: Education is primarily a state and local responsibility, with each state having significant control over its educational system. However, the federal government influences education through funding programs and mandates tied to federal grants.
• Germany: Education is primarily managed by the states (Länder). The federal government plays a role in higher education and vocational training, but primary and secondary education are largely state responsibilities.
• United Kingdom: Education policies and administration vary significantly between the four constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), with each having its educational framework.
• France: The education system is highly centralized, with the Ministry of National Education setting the curriculum and educational standards.

Way forward

• Focus on Collaborative Federalism: As suggested by the Kothari Commission (1964-66), the approach ensures national minimum standards set by the Centre while allowing states flexibility in curriculum, language, and pedagogy. This method balances central oversight with state-specific adaptations, addressing regional diversity in education.
• Implement Outcome-Based Funding Mechanisms: Following the NITI Aayog’s recommendations in the “Strategy for New India @ 75” document, resources should be allocated based on learning outcomes. This system incentivizes states to improve educational quality by linking funding to measurable educational achievements.
• Promote Decentralized School Management Structures: Envisioned in the Right to Education Act (RTE) 2009, this approach empowers School Management Committees (SMCs) with community participation, fostering local ownership and responsiveness. Decentralization enhances the responsiveness of schools to local needs and contexts.
• Advocate for Reforms Based on TSR Subramanian Committee Report (2009): This includes improved teacher training programs, transparent transfer policies, and performance-based incentives. Such reforms aim to create a motivated and effective teaching force by addressing issues of teacher training and deployment.
• Develop Standardized National Assessment Framework: Inspired by practices in countries like Australia, a standardized national assessment framework with state-specific benchmarks allows for national comparisons while acknowledging regional diversities. This dual approach ensures consistent quality while respecting local contexts.
• Implement Strategies from PMMMNMTT: The Government of India’s “Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya National Mission on Teachers and Teaching” (PMMMNMTT) outlines leveraging technology for equitable access and quality education, especially in remote areas. This can include digital classrooms, online resources, and teacher training modules.
• Develop a Flexible National Curriculum Framework (NCF): As suggested by NCERT, a flexible NCF allows states to adapt it to their specific linguistic and cultural contexts. This ensures a balance between achieving national educational goals and addressing state-specific needs and preferences.

Conclusion

These recommendations aim to create a balanced, inclusive, and quality education system in India.

By focusing on collaborative federalism, outcome-based funding, decentralized management, teacher training reforms, standardized assessments, technological integration, and flexible curriculum frameworks, India can address regional disparities while maintaining high educational standards across the nation.

The debate about restoring education in state list in India involves balancing the benefits of regional autonomy against the need for national standards and uniformity.

Examining how other federal and unitary countries manage education can provide valuable insights into the potential advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

Related articles:

-Article by Swathi Satish