Tamil Nadu's new education policy mirrors NEP 2020, lacks state-specific vision and inclusivity

The Hindu

2 days ago

Amidst widespread expectation and hope, the much-hyped Tamil Nadu State Education Policy 2025 has been unveiled by the government, only for school education, and in a piecemeal manner. Being the first of its kind in terms of its inferior content and structure, the policy document lacks the body of knowledge that constitutes a public policy, as well as the universally accepted conventions, customs, and norms that are historically followed in policy formulation.
In letter and spirit, it reflects NEP 2020
The irony is that, in a transparent digital world, the policymakers boldly claim that this policy does not reflect NEP 2020, even though the themes and ideas on which its recommendations are based are truly the essence of NEP 2020. Both are similar in their emphasis on the centralisation of curriculum, teaching, and learning, and end-to-end control of educational functions, right from curriculum design through instruction to examination.
There is little to no scope for localising or diversifying curricular content and pedagogical approaches. Centralised systems like EMIS, Palli Paarvai, and Payirchi Paarvai reflect the NEP's emphasis on centralised repositories and monitoring agencies.
Like NEP 2020, the state policy promotes skills-based development through schemes such as TN-SPARK, Manarkeni App, and Naan Mudhalvan. It's model schools and block-wise Vetri Palligal resembles the PM Shri Schools. Illam Thedi Kalvi can be seen as equivalent to the 'education by local champions' approach advocated in NEP 2020. Therefore, in both letter and spirit, the state policy aligns closely with NEP 2020, with the exception of a Vedic value system, which sets it apart.
Where is Tamil Nadu's distinctness?
Firstly, it has reasonably failed to meet the Terms of Reference mandated by the Government of Tamil Nadu, GO No. 98, dated June 1, 2022. It calls for the 'formation of a distinct State education policy for Tamil Nadu in keeping with the historical legacy, present situation, and future aspirations of the state.'
The unveiled document does not reflect even an iota of understanding of what Tamil Nadu's distinct features, problems, conditions, and challenges are, nor how its recommendations can serve as genuine solutions to address these issues. As education is a social function, an education policy cannot be limited to merely suggesting technical ideas related to educational functions such as curriculum, teaching, learning, and examinations.
The policy must also be connected to and underpinned by broader constructs that influence education, including social structure, culture, psychological perspectives, human development, human relationships, human production, economic endeavors, livelihood, and political factors. The policy should pursue these constructs in relation to the state's unique features when envisioning education for the future.
Historically, Tamil Nadu is known for its commitment to the Two-Language Formula, the State's rights on education, the no-detention policy up to Class 8, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009), and the 10+2 pattern of secondary school education. These practices are already in place in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, this policy cannot claim credit for them merely because they are mentioned.
What is required is a strategic perspective that emphasizes the role of education in balancing human experience and desirable human development, particularly in the context of the changing dimensions of all relevant human perspectives, through comprehensive educational measures. These measures should be conceived within the unique conditions, challenges, and problems faced by Tamil Nadu and Tamil society, alongside global perspectives.
The focus of education should be on developing necessary skills, including critical thinking, resilience, creativity, problem-solving, and personality development—encompassing emotional capacity, attitudes, and behavior. Education should dynamically conceive and continuously update subject matter that integrates both native and global perspectives, drawing from real-world issues without being mediated or controlled solely by the State.
Learning should be both pedagogically and personally driven, taking into account the psychosocial conditions students carry from their diverse socio-demographic backgrounds. Assessment practices should primarily aim at enhancing learning, rather than penalising students through detentions (especially in higher classes), comparative rankings, or certifications.
These educational challenges cannot be effectively addressed through nominal slogans or populist schemes, as previously mentioned, instead, they require thoughtful, well-planned educational measures and remedies.
Centralising education function through centralised apps and systems
The policy, like NEP 2020, consolidates all remedies and recommendations under the notion that only through centralised control by the Department of School Education can the lofty claims and goals outlined in the document be achieved. It assumes that existing schemes — such as centralised monitoring systems and apps like EMIS, Palli Paarvai, the State Level Achievement Survey, Payirchi Paarvai, Manarkeni, TN-SPARK, and Kalvi TV—will suffice to realise its intended vision.
More than doing good, these systems have paralysed teaching and learning at the grassroots level—i.e., classrooms—by forcing teachers to customarily follow a highly regulated, standardised, prescriptive system of teaching and learning as real-time data processors. This has resulted in a loss of effective teaching and learning in classrooms, and teachers are overloaded with the associated secretarial work involved.
At the core of the policy lies a clear reaffirmation of the prevailing status quo in the education sector. It appears to be preparing manpower for a life that conforms to the triangular collusion among the ruling state establishment, market forces, and social elites. The policy has effectively sidelined both students and teachers from the core functions of education, instead centralising all authority within the School Education Department to remotely control educational processes.
Systems like EMIS, Palli Paarvai, Payirchi Paarvai, along with other centralised schemes such as Ennum Ezhuthum, aim to shift the educational function away from teachers and students and into the hands of state bureaucracies.
The policy is a private good – not a public good
No one would disagree if it is claimed that Dravidian Model governance should focus on social justice and social transformation in all its efforts to achieve equality, equity, liberty, diversity, and inclusivity in both society and education. Unless these features are realised in educational delivery, education will remain a private good, as it is now. Transforming education into a common good should be the primary goal for those claiming to champion social justice.
It is unfortunate for the people of Tamil Nadu that the policy is disinclined to uphold minimum standards for educational inputs, particularly in areas such as teacher-student ratios, teacher appointments at all levels of government schooling, school campus facilities and infrastructure, and twenty-first-century learning materials. The policy has completely ignored early childhood development. It makes no mention or measures regarding all these aspects, even as it claims to promote inclusivity and equity in its vision.
Nowhere in the policy does one find constructive strategies or recommendations for fostering inclusivity, diversity, or preventing the proliferation of commercialisation and privatisation of education. There is no outlook or provision for the expansion of public education or neighbourhood public schools.
To truly liberate education and realise its character as a common good, adequate financial resources are essential. However, the policy offers no clear direction in this regard. Instead of categorically prescribing a specific percentage of the State Gross Domestic Product (SGDP) for educational expenditure, it delegates developmental funding to private initiatives such as Namma School, Namma Ooru Palli, and Corporate Social Responsibility programs. Education of Socially and Educationally Backward Communities, Including SC/ST, is at Stake
The rising incidents of honor killings, the widening caste segregation in society, and casteism and caste-based violence on school campuses all indicate that education has so far failed to prepare students holistically in all respects. Reports suggest that education itself reproduces caste inequality through its curricular framework, teaching practices, and subject matter. The same applies to gender inequality.
There is little evidence of any targeted educational interventions in the policy aimed at ensuring quality education for socially and educationally backward communities such as SC/STs, MBCs—especially when their education, careers, and livelihoods face the challenges posed by advanced technologies, artificial intelligence, new consumption patterns, modern supply chain mechanisms, and the changing dimensions of human production and skills required for the 21st century.
While elites have access to resources and the means to adapt to these changes, the question remains: how can the socially and educationally backward communities be prepared? Does the policy have any ideas about this? Unfortunately, the policy lacks the wisdom to recognise that social inequality, gender inequality, hatred, divisive social behaviors, and the absence of shared experiences and community living are fundamental barriers to developing the critical skills and knowledge needed in the 21st century.
Another alarming issue is how casteism within schools—perpetrated by both peers and teachers—undermines and hampers the learning and performance of SC/ST children. A study by the World Bank (2016), authored by Karla Hoff and Priyanka Pandey, found that publicly revealing the caste identity of SC/ST students negatively influences their self-image and academic performance. The study also observed that their performance suffers because teachers and peers often treat them as inferior.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that disadvantaged castes face many challenges in accessing educational institutions and pursuing education, including inaccessibility, discrimination, unfair treatment in classrooms, undue peer pressure related to caste identities, societal pressures, and commercialisation. The entire educational ecosystem—school campuses, pedagogy, and extracurricular activities—must incorporate measures to address the psychosocial conditions of socially and educationally backward children. However, the policy fails to offer concrete ideas or solutions to these issues. Instead, it presents vague slogans such as 'Harmony Circles,' 'Team Building,' 'Makizh Manram,' and 'Kalaithiruvizha' as ways to make schools more inclusive.
No scope for grooming SC/ST students towards 21st century occupational mobility
The Institute for the Study of Labour (Bonn, Germany) in its 2012 report identified the direct effect of caste and tribe identities on occupational segregation over time. This impact is distinct from other indirect pathways through which caste status influences occupational structure, as well as from other determinants of occupational choice such as education, land ownership, and demographic characteristics.
A World Bank report (2021) observed that 'occupational identity and caste hierarchy have major effects on career choices. Certain occupations in India are still predominantly composed of individuals 'born' into those occupations, and the average person is more than three times as likely to enter their traditional occupation than any other.'
Given these deeply entrenched patterns, does the recent policy include any strategies or interventions to prepare disadvantaged children—especially for future occupations and jobs shaped by technological advancements? In the context of education, does the policy propose any constructive mechanisms or preparatory measures to help these children navigate occupational mobility beyond their traditional or descent-based occupations?
Protection of minority education?
The policy does not include any references to secular education. Secularism in education does not simply mean making education 'blind to religiosity,' but rather enabling learners to critically understand and be aware of religious diversity. It also involves protecting the rights of minorities to practice their aspirations and values within educational settings, free from indoctrination or domination by the majority. While the NEP 2020 appears to strengthen its stance against these principles enshrined in the Constitution, what does the State Policy have to say about the expectations of minorities regarding secular education?
Conclusion and appeal
Essentially, the policy appears to be a road map that allows education to fall into the hands of commercial private agencies. It is rooted in principles of centralisation, commercialisation, privatisation, and elitism (e.g., Model School = PM Shree School). It also exhibits anti-social and anti-democratic tendencies. In its current form, the policy is nothing more than an antipeople replica of NEP 2020.
Therefore, I urge the Government of Tamil Nadu and the State Legislature to withdraw this policy and instead commission a new education policy committee composed of genuinely people-centred educational experts. Such a committee should draft a just, inclusive, and contextually relevant education policy for all.