The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 came after a long wait, with several tentative moves; committees were formed, but no report was released. The committee constituted in 2017 put out a bulky 484-page Draft NEP (DNEP) in June 2019. There were discussions and critical deliberations; several groups, academic institutions and individuals gave feedback and suggestions. Strong political protests took place in the southern states, especially in Tamil Nadu, against Hindi being made compulsory in schools. That was retracted and an alternative draft, almost in anticipation of the response, was immediately released. In July 2020, NEP came out in the midst of a devastating pandemic; with 50,000 new cases testing positive for COVID-19 each day, millions displaced after loss of livelihoods, and a nationwide lockdown. Children remained abandoned, deprived of mid-day meals, and schools were shut for almost two years; classes suddenly went online, deepening the digital divide. While all institutions remained closed, NEP was approved without any discussion in the parliament. It had its confounding moments; it was not clear which one was the ‘real’ policy, among the different versions doing the rounds. There was a 60-page document (marked ‘For Circulation’ as received by the press and political commentators), a 71-page one sent to the press in May 2020, and the 484-page DNEP on the website. On the evening of July 29, press commentators and experts offered their analyses based on other versions. A political scientist displayed on television the 60-page NEP document, and appreciated the extension of the Right to Education (RTE) Act to henceforth cover 3-18 year olds. Yet, none of this was in the ‘final’ 66-page NEP released on the official website two days later. More curiously the final NEP did not have the names of the committee members, as displayed in policy reports, and prominently given with their signatures in the DNEP 2019. So, the question naturally arose as to who was responsible for what was finally written in the ‘final’ NEP document. No clarifications ever came.Often unanswered questions lend to post-hoc analysis, where internal negotiations of varied interest groups can indicate tacit tensions of policy articulation. Insider insights have contributed to policy studies, such as the reflections of educator and thinker J.P. Naik, 15 years after the Kothari Commission, of which he was the member secretary. The questions he posed then are important even now, about the kind of education the policy envisions. How can a system of education serve two contradictory objectives, he asks—one that functions as a democratic institution for the pursuit of knowledge and the other as a mechanism for the grading, certification, and sorting of individuals into different social strata? Our education system, Naik observes, shares the characteristics of industrial production and is suited for the ‘knowledge industry’. For the new society we envision, what curricula can we develop that do not promote values of consumerism, capitalism and competition?. The committee for NEP 2020 did not have an educationist to provide critical perspectives, and the policy came without the customary introduction giving a socio-historical analysis of past policy interventions. Unlike the earlier policies that stood for a transformative vision of social justice embedded in the Constitution, NEP 2020 rhetorically aims for: ‘An education system rooted in (the) Indian ethos that contributes directly to transforming India, that is Bharat, sustainably into a vibrant knowledge society, by providing high quality education to all, and thereby making India a global knowledge superpower…’ with ‘truly global citizens’. The high-level committees for NEP 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (abbreviated to NCF) 2023 needed persons with more expertise and knowledge of the domain. The chairperson of both, a well-known space scientist, had not worked in education policy or curriculum; when asked by a reporter why NEP had no mention of ‘caste’ he said ‘where is caste, I don’t see it’. There have been questions about inducting famous public figures into the NEP and textbook committees who may not have curricular expertise but whose names can shield the process from public scrutiny, and perhaps obscure the unnamed persons engaged in the writing. In fact, some faculty at the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the academic body for the NCF and textbooks, have been concerned about the way in which these documents were developed, and continue to be written.Also read: National Curriculum Framework 2023: Whom Will This Structure of ‘Student Choice’ Benefit?NEP: A Hypernym for Populist Policy FramingNEP is more than a policy document; it is an acronym that has been stretched and distended into a populist hypernym; an umbrella mantra to be mobilised for different purposes. In the five years of its unfolding, it has been used to implement various changes meted out in its name. Its aims are multifaceted – centralisation; more control over states, institutions and curricula; exclusion; segregation; rebranding of ‘model’ schools; closing and merging of schools; deletion, distortion, ‘Indianisation’ or Brahminisation of curricula; skilling; corporatisation, commercialisation; or even ‘cleanliness’. The policy reveals the changed hierarchy of aims, when constitutional values are deliberately prefaced with ethical and human values, so that the more mundane ethos of ‘cleanliness’ or ‘respect for public property’ takes precedence over ‘equality’ and ‘justice’. The policy document is consistent in this ordering; the fundamental principles that guide it are ‘values like empathy, respect for others, cleanliness, courtesy, democratic spirit, spirit of service, respect for public property, scientific temper, liberty, responsibility, pluralism, equality and justice’.The second anniversary of NEP 2020 was subsumed under the celebrations of ‘Amrit Kaal’ in 2022 on the occasion of 75 years of Independence. It mobilised the ‘massification’ of policy framing, with a nationalist push for the ‘knowledge of India’. The Union Ministry of Education (MoE) announced a digital public consultation to collate inputs from ‘stakeholders’ towards a populist formulation of the National Curriculum Framework. The education minister, speaking to the Times of India, declared that NEP was the biggest document ever made through ‘public participation’ after the Indian Constitution which was developed by the Constituent Assembly. Illustration: Pariplab ChakrabortyThe Digital Survey for National Curriculum (DiSaNC) was christened with an awkward acronym to be pronounced as Dishank (now closed). It was another of the digitally-centralised measures for NEP that had been in use since the pandemic. Its ten questions, some very poorly framed, asked for options ostensibly based on the NEP. A deliberate confounding and substituting of constitutional values with fundamental ‘duties’ can be seen in the survey questions which omit the values of justice, democracy, liberty and equality even suggesting that their inclusion in school curricula be open to popular ‘choice’. Given below are some of the questions as mentioned on the website:Q: Which values do children need to imbibe in the course of school education?– Constitutional values such as fundamental duties towards nation and state, law abidingness, peaceful co-existence, fraternity, etc. – Values such as teamwork, commitment to personal, institutional, and national integrity, etc.– Human values such as fellow-feeling, empathy, honesty, mutual respect, etc.– Moral values such as truthfulness, non-violence, integrity, commitment, etc.The phrase ‘Knowledge of India’ appears repeatedly as a clubbed option in three out of the ten survey questions, as in the listing together of ‘Health, well-being, yoga & sports, and Knowledge of India’ while asking about desirable ‘subjects’ to be taught. Many of the terms – health, wellbeing, sports, yoga, crafts, team activities – cannot be equated with ‘subjects’ such as the sciences or the social sciences, yet this framing helps to obfuscate the issue. Q: What subjects should be taught to children in classes 3-5 (Preparatory Stage)?– Integrated and team activities– Arts, Crafts and Health, well-being, yoga & sports– Health, well-being, yoga & sports, and Knowledge of India– Social Science, Science, Mathematics and Languages– Languages, Environmental Studies, and MathematicsQ: What do you think should be the focus of learning in the age group 3-8 years (Foundational Stage)?– Fundamental Literacy and Numeracy– Maintaining health and well-being– Communication skills– Environmental AwarenessThese options seem to be designed to endorse NEP in erasing Environmental Studies (EVS), a major subject area, from primary school; the chapter on environmental degradation had been deleted from the science textbooks. Most people taking the survey may not know that EVS is an integrated form of primary science and social studies – and not simply environmental awareness – and therefore will not understand the implications of removing it from primary school. Forcing the public to choose from poorly-framed options, pointing to the desired decisions, is not an educationally robust or acceptable proposition. It might serve to provide media bytes for the ‘manufacture of consent’. However, such populist number crunching of ‘choice’ – even about the subjects to be taught in primary or secondary school – does not lend legitimacy to curriculum development, which requires deeper and informed curricular and pedagogical deliberations. Calibrated for centralisation and corporatisationThe language of NEP is carefully calibrated, as the policy chooses the phrase of providing ‘universal access’ in place of ensuring the ‘right to education’, which is clearly not the same. It cursorily mentions RTE only once, and then continues to contradict it in several ways through ‘alternative models’ and ‘multiple pathways’ including non-formal education, and state or national institute of open schooling (NIOS). NEP mentions gurukuls, madrasas, home schooling, and so on, but is silent about the plethora of substandard low-fee private schools, and the over a hundred thousand Ekal Vidyalayas, the one-teacher schools run by rightwing organisations. All these ‘alternate models’ circumvent compliance with the RTE, and mostly recruit volunteers not qualified teachers. These do not have any affiliation to regular secondary education boards, and children are made to appear for the Open School examinations. NIOS has been used as a safe refuge even by government school systems in states, as in Delhi, by throwing out ‘weak’ students after Grade 9, so that their marks in the board examinations in grades 10 and 12 do not sully the state results.Also read: Dehumanising Gurus While We Grandstand as a VishwaguruIn reassuring its ‘public philanthropic partners’ – with a twist to the acronym PPP – that the essential RTE requirements ‘will be loosened’, the façade of education being ‘not-for-profit’ is kept, while expressly enlarging its corporate footprint. Aligning with the neo-liberal paradigm of ‘learning outcomes’ extracted from centralised tests, it deliberately plays down essential ‘inputs’ that ensure an enabling learning environment. This is a discourse of denial of the basic rights of children, especially of the disadvantaged. The policy is also in denial of the socio-historical underpinnings of disadvantage, deprivation and exclusion, and forges new acronyms to obfuscate identities that are shaped by these realities. Caste, religion, gender, Adivasi, ethnic and linguistic minorities are all clubbed under the blanket acronym SEDG – Socio Economically Disadvantaged Groups.The policy’s unfolding shows an unprecedented form of centralisation with highly prescriptive procedures. The process has thrown up unprofessional, tentative ideas, a lack of understanding of ground realities of schools, teachers and students; some shoddy revocations, and the quiet replacement of documents without official notification. NCF 2023, to begin with, was a 628-page document on the NCERT website in May 2023. It does not say it is a draft (though a foreword is missing) and spells out an elaborate scheme for secondary education, In Grades 9-10, students must complete a total of 16 essential courses. Again, for Grades 11-12, they must complete 16 choice-based courses. The impracticality of this scheme for the Indian education system had clearly not been thought through, even at that late stage. By August 2023, a 600-page document retracted this scheme, replacing it with yet another problematic model for secondary education. Three years into the policy, NCF 2023 came up with an alarmingly elaborate plan for micromanaging the system for the entire spectrum of school stages. It spells out a syllabus outline, delineates details of subject areas, learning standards, curricular goals and expected outcomes. It even has an entire chapter on time allocation. Thus, for secondary school (Grades 9-10) it gives an illustrative note: ‘The weekday begins with an assembly for 25 minutes with 05 minutes to reach the classroom’, followed by a detailed timetable for all the subjects. An NCF is usually meant to be only a broad framework to guide the national and state agencies in developing their own curricula within the federal constitutional structure. The present overly-centralised design is precisely what the 100-page NCF 2005 had warned against, as an instrument for imposing uniformity. NCF 2005 underscored that for a robust democracy, the states had a major role in ensuring cultural diversity and equity through their own curricula. It restated the aim of education that: ‘a citizen should have the intellectual integrity to sift truth from falsehood, facts from propaganda, and to reject the dangerous appeal of fanaticism and prejudice…. (to) dispassionately examine and courageously reject what arrests the forces of justice and progress.’Since 2020, detailed directions from the Union government have gone down to the states, even when they were ‘told’ to bring out their own State Curriculum Frameworks. A digital ‘paperless’ approach facilitated centralisation with limited transparency and little room for states to make their own policy decisions. A technology platform was designed to give e-templates for all the consultations, surveys, curriculum position papers, and so on. A 135-page ‘Guidelines for Position Papers’ was sent to each state, with strict question-wise word limits. However, NCERT made it clear that their submissions will only be machine read, to pick up predefined categories and codes which were not specified. Ground reports indicated that the leading questions and the format of the ‘consultations’ had generated often compliant ‘homogenised’ responses. It seemed an exercise in futility, involving large numbers of people, precious time and public funds. What was the need for a state to write 25 position papers on pre-decided themes? States did it, if at all, more as a formality; not many completed the task. Rather, they could have spent greater creative effort developing better syllabi and textbooks. Karnataka, probably the only state to have promptly uploaded its curriculum position papers, revealed the substandard work and spurious expertise that went into the exercise. A change in government led to a State Education Commission being set up, which deliberated and revoked decisions taken under NEP, to now plan for itself. However, many states such as Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh have given up their autonomy to make curricula and textbooks, switching to NCERT textbooks. Kerala is one state that put in serious effort and produced the Kerala Curriculum Framework through decentralised processes and meaningful public consultations. Tamil Nadu has strongly resisted the imposition of NEP 2020; West Bengal too offered some resistance. These states have faced an unprecedented backlash and the Union Government has even withheld their funds under the centrally-sponsored scheme of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) approved for 2024-2025. This has had a detrimental impact on schools, teachers, and children. Illustration: Pariplab ChakrabortyTamil Nadu has petitioned the Supreme Court regarding this and Kerala is to follow. Both states, among a few others, were being pressured to sign MOUs for the PM-SHRI schools (not related to SSA funds), which required approving NEP and the CBSE curriculum. In an affidavit in the high court, Tamil Nadu stated that NEP 2020 would be ‘cruel and disadvantageous to the people of Tamil Nadu’. Moreover, in higher education, Tamil Nadu has already achieved a Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) higher than not only the other states but also higher than the NEP target of 50% GER to be attained by 2035. The affidavit critiqued the policy for vocational education from Grade 6, which would exclude vulnerable sections from formal education and the formal economy. It rightfully insisted that continuous internal assessment as mentioned in the original RTE mandate is most appropriate for young students, not the NEP-mandated external tests, which adversely impact those being failed, detained and pushed out.Restructuring of Schools: A Selectively Dumbed Down Curriculum?There are problems with the proposed restructuring of the school system. The earlier structure has primary school (Grades 1-5 in most states, in some Grades 1-4), and middle school (Grades 6-8, or 5-7). Secondary school has Grades 9-10 and senior secondary has Grades 11-12.Without any study and consultation across the states, and with no systemic preparation, NEP 2020 proposed restructuring of the school into a 5+3+3+4 design of four stages, as follows:(a) Foundational Stage (age 3-8 years; 3 years of Anganwadi/pre-school + Grades 1 and 2), (b) Preparatory Stage (age 8-11 years; Grades 3-5), (c) Middle Stage (age 11-14 years; Grades 6-8),(d) Secondary Stage (age 14-18 years; Grades 9 and 10 followed by 11 and 12).NCF 2023 states that these stages are based on current understanding of child development. However, its statements on child development and its claims that conceptual development happens only at the middle stage do not comply with contemporary theories of learning. Even little children interact with the world, perceive people and things through patterns of similarities and differences, and construct concepts through the words they begin to speak with. There is a clear ‘dumbing down’ of the curriculum in primary school split into two stages – the Foundational, and what is being called the ‘Preparatory’ stage. Each period of their development has significance so why designate one as ‘preparatory’ for something later? The emphasis on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (FLN), instead of Early Language and Mathematics, and also depriving Grades 3-5 of the crucial area of Environmental Studies (EVS) which integrates science and social science, goes against theories of child development. With a new inconsequential name ‘The World Around Us’ (TWAU), and with unsubstantiated reasons for removing EVS, NCF shifts the burden onto the teachers by indicating their inability to teach the interdisciplinary subject; this contradicts its claim to promote interdisciplinarity. With minimal expectations for children 3-8 years old, NEP opens the space for Anganwadi workers, community volunteers and even ‘peer tutors’, for educating those who need the best professional ‘inputs’. However, private schools will continue to comply with their clients and constituencies.Also read: What Freedoms, Which Schools for the Millions of Abandoned ‘Offline’ Children?In the final version of NCF 2023, students of grades 9-10 are required to take 10 subjects. These include 3 languages (two of which are native to India), and 7 more subjects – mathematics, science, social science, art education, physical education, vocational education, and Interdisciplinary Areas (IDA). In Grades 11-12, students are required to take 2 languages (Group 1) and 4 subjects from at least two of the following groups: Group 2: Art Education, Physical Education and Well-being, Vocational Education Group 3: Social Science and Humanities, Interdisciplinary Areas Group 4: Science, Mathematics & Computational ThinkingWe know that ‘choice’ is often not available to students, especially when there are no teachers for many subjects. In Delhi, only about one third of government schools offer science in Grades 11-12, as students do not get the minimum 50% marks in Grade 10, and there are not enough teachers. Under the Interdisciplinary Areas (IDA), an option called Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) is being expressly pushed in schools, and also in university and research programmes. The earlier textbooks had drawn upon people’s indigenous and artisanal knowledges as well as the economic and ecological challenges faced by farmers, weavers, fishers, Adivasis, masons, junk sellers, to name only a few. However, the rubric of ‘Indian Knowledge’ in NEP 2020 has a different, problematic focus. It covers Brahminical and scripted knowledge, traditional or religious rituals and practices, unsubstantiated historical mythologies, and magical medicinal cures, without distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. Moreover, there is the insistence on ascribing a ‘national’ label rather than acknowledge the historical legacy of regional and global entanglements of collective knowledge production and sharing. A serious concern, as also stated by the Tamil Nadu government, is NEP’s early emphasis on vocational education, which in the Indian context is a low-status option often tied to caste. In primary school, NEP claims to build ‘pre-vocational capacities’ through activities in the kitchen garden, clay modelling, or while speaking with shopkeepers. This term is not used for elementary school; on the contrary, in the NCF 2005 primary textbooks, farmers, artisans, or shopkeepers are considered resource persons, from whom all children and teachers are encouraged to respectfully seek knowledge. So why is knowledge that is essential for the learning of different subjects being termed as ‘pre-vocational’? NEP aims for 50% children in vocational education; however, to start ‘preparing’ them for a vocation at this early age goes against their right to equitable education, and will impact the vulnerable, according to their caste. Clubbing together Grades 9-12 for an earlier diversion into ‘vocational courses’ of children who are not considered ‘able’ for academic studies is, as Naik warned, a regressive function of this system that reproduces social inequalities. We need good work-based education for all students through new creative and credible courses that challenge the hierarchy of ‘knowledge’ for the ‘able’ few versus ‘skills’ for the ‘less able’ majority.The policy endorsement of Sustainable Development Goal 4 needs serious commitment to ensure ‘inclusive and equitable quality education’ for all, which is not seen to translate on the ground. There are no easy ways out. Populist suggestions in NEP of ‘easier’ board examinations or of a reduction in curriculum to the ‘core’ essentials, along with the sweeping deletions and erasures in the existing textbooks, and the questionable distortions in the new books, do not repose trust or elevate expectations. In fact, the new NCERT Grade 7 Social Science textbook invents history, geography and ecology with a mythical flourish, through a pious timeline of over two millennia. Guilds are generalised as models of the ‘self-organising abilities of Indian society’ where caste played a useful flexible role, becoming rigid only during British rule. It is claimed that the ‘cultural integration’ of the entire subcontinent happened over 3000 years with Indians crisscrossing the sacred land through several sacred networks (of char dhams, 12 jyotirlingas, 51 Shakti peethas). The word ‘sacred’ occurs around 87 times in one chapter, with vivid visuals of the ‘sacred geography’, and the punyakshetra that ‘has helped us protect and preserve nature, since we are not distinct from her’. That perhaps is a good reason why EVS is seen as dispensable, as are other discomforting ideas on environmental degradation. The Mughals have been brazenly removed from the Grade 7 (part 1) textbook, and we have yet to see how they will be represented in the books that follow.The new Grade 7 English textbook diligently propagates government initiatives such as Make in India, Vande Bharat Trains, Atal Bihari Tunnel, and the War Memorial. In an unnatural conversation, a mother and child almost sound like propagandists for the Digital India Initiative; similarly young children serve as foot soldiers to ‘spread awareness’ about Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao, without any critical reflection or even questions to discuss the challenges girls are facing. Worryingly, the imperative for indoctrination and compliance appears to hold sway across the curricular space. This is contrary to an ethos of discussion and debate through a constructivist critical pedagogy, an important aim of NCF 2005. Indeed, even before peace and trust building initiatives are thought of, some states have asserted that the military initiative against Pakistan in May 2025 will soon be part of the curriculum. Maharashtra has announced ‘military training’ by retired soldiers to instil patriotism from Grade 1.Extra-Constitutional Reordering of Education?We have discussed how NEP has offered extra-constitutional means to ‘re-order’ education. The promotion of exclusive ‘exemplar’ or model schools (by the Union government and some states) with disproportionately higher funding by selection through stringent tests has seen an increasing budget allocation. Rebranding of well-resourced public schools such as Kendriya and Navodaya Vidyalayas under the PM SHRI scheme, and inclusion of a few thousand more ‘well performing’ schools in states can create an oasis within the larger ecosystem. This can result in the government further withdrawing support to the ‘less performing’ schools, while closing down or merging what are being called ‘non-viable’ schools. As we conclude, we briefly look at both these issues. The Delhi government (under the Aam Aadmi Party) has been following models of ‘selection’ through tests for ‘talented’ students. Ironically, the programme for ‘gifted’ students by the Inclusive Education Branch of the Directorate of Education is called Abhishikt (translated as consecrated, or blessed). Only 82 students of Grade 6 have been selected in the state, through an elaborate multi-stage process in which the Jnana Prabodhini Institute, Pune (with a rightwing legacy) has collaborated. At a recent orientation (under the new BJP government), parents were informed that for the selected students, traditional rote methods will be replaced by inquiry-based learning, field visits, and hands-on projects, ‘in line with NEP’. A progressive inquiry-based critical pedagogy has been recommended for all children under every policy. It is even clearly spelt out and mandated by the RTE as a constitutional right, while selection tests are banned. Under NEP, why is this pedagogy being claimed as only for the ‘abhishikt’ or the gifted? The term abhishikt alludes to a person innately ‘blessed’ with special qualities and ‘intelligence’; these students have been tested for a high IQ. The concept of ‘giftedness’ in psychology has traditionally resorted to claims of innate qualities which deserve exclusive teaching through segregation. However, within contemporary rights-based frameworks of equity, diversity and inclusion, this is being reframed not as a person-based characteristic, but as a process-based form of education for honing the talents of all children. Yet, our governments choose to regressively use merit or ‘talent’ to justify distributing limited resources only to a ‘select’ few, while simultaneously closing hundreds of thousands of schools, withdrawing from educating the majority, and allowing the market to take over.A project for ‘school optimisation’ called ‘Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital in Education’ (SATH-E), has recommended the closure of hundreds of thousands of schools. It has said that of the total 15 lakh schools in India, 11 lakh schools are ‘sub-scale’ – where four lakh have fewer than 50 students, and 1.1 lakh have less than 20 students (NITI, 2021). It claims that ‘optimisation’ by moving from 11 lakh sub-scale schools to a ‘more efficient’ 6.5 lakh schools (after closing 4.5 lakh schools) will ensure quality education. Over 40% of students drop out before they reach Grade 11, and only 23% complete Grade 12. The report notes that there is a shortage of 10 lakh teachers mostly in rural areas, and that it can take several years to fill these vacancies. But on what basis is it assumed that bigger and less accessible schools will provide quality education? The entire discourse of ‘unviable’, ‘sub-optimal’, ‘sub-scale’ versus ‘bigger’, ‘efficient’, ‘having more resources’ needs to be questioned, as also the exercise of ‘consolidation’, merger and ‘reorganisation’, which despite creating hurdles and throwing out millions is claimed to be the route to quality education. Illustration: Pariplab ChakrabortyThe NITI report (2021) calls for top-down reviews to create competition, reward those who deliver good outcomes, and penalise those who do not. Beyond a neo-liberal system management perspective, there are no concerns about the children; rather only a mention of parents being excited to send them to a ‘bigger’ school. It says that in Jharkhand, 4,600 sub-scale schools (13% of the total number of schools) had been reorganised/consolidated into larger schools. Odisha had consolidated 1.2 lakh sub-optimal schools to 1 lakh ‘better resourced’ schools, while another 10,000 more schools were meant to be optimised. As a member of an Odisha state think tank during those years, I recall the state education secretary describing the pressure they were under from NITI and its young consultants who landed up every fortnight to check on school closures. The state seemed to have succumbed, yet people resisted, and School Management Committees filed and won a case in the High Court in 2021 against the closure of 8,000 schools.What should be surprising is that data on school closures and mergers are not available with the government. The data between 2017-18 and 2023-24 (Mehta, 2025, based on UDISE+) shows a decline of 87,012 schools, from 15,58,903 to 14,71,891 (6% of the total schools in 2017); for government schools there is a decline of 76,883, from 10,94,543 to 10,17,660 (7% decline). When the Parliamentary Standing Committee asked the ministry for year-wise data on schools closed or merged, it was told that this data was not kept; even the data provided on the number of schools had incorrect figures. The Committee made firm comments and recommendations. Will children’s right to good quality public education be upheld?As we end, the following words of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Education, Women, Children, Youth & Sports succinctly sum up the present challenges before the country under NEP: “The Committee recommends that the Department should develop effective mechanism to stop closure of schools and to open new Government schools in view of the increasing population density of the area and in compliance of RTE Act, 2009….The Committee notes that in some areas, considerable number of the children in schools that have shut down drop out of the school, and that the effects are disproportionately felt by girl children, children with disabilities, and Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste communities. The lack of data precludes any systematic study or policy of the impact that such school closures may have on students. The Committee emphasizes that the RTE is a law passed by Parliament which deals with the fundamental rights of Indian children and the Department should evolve a mechanism to ensure that School consolidations are not done in a manner that contradicts the RTE Act, 2009.”. “The Committee is pained to note that 15 years after the RTE Act was passed, we have still not reached universal achievement of RTE norms by schools and teachers…. (The) Committee calls for a revamping of the scheme to function on mission mode…. to achieve near-saturation of the RTE’s requirements by 2029…. (In addition) the RTE must be amended to extend the right to education until the age of 18. A set of clear entitlements must be identified, a protocol must be put in place to prevent dropouts, and norms must be established on the setting up of secondary schools.”“The Committee has taken serious note of the non-release of SSA funds to certain States which have not signed MoUs for implementation of PM SHRI scheme… The SSA predates PM SHRI and is intended to help States to achieve the targets of the Right to Education Act. …The SSA, as a scheme that enforces the fundamental right-based RTE, cannot be bypassed by the NEP, which was an executive policy statement. The Committee further observes that withholding the funds under SSA to States for not entering into MoU for separate schemes like PM SHRI is not justifiable. The Committee recommends immediate release of pending SSA Funds to States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.” Anita Rampal taught at the Faculty of Education, Delhi University; was Chairperson of the NCERT Textbook Development Committees at Primary Stage, under NCF 2005.A version of this piece first appeared on the Jindal Journal of Public Policy.