The Gap Between Promise and Reality
The idea of “child-centric” education has gained prominence in India’s education policy, particularly with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The policy claims to shift learning from rigid, content-heavy curricula to a more flexible, holistic approach that fosters creativity and social-emotional development. However, a closer look suggests that the core power structures remain unchanged. Despite progressive rhetoric, the NEP reinforces a centralized, top-down model of education rather than empowering students with real decision-making authority.
Expanding Bureaucratic Control
The NEP positions itself as a break from traditional rote learning, but in practice, it extends bureaucratic oversight. While the policy promotes concepts such as social-emotional learning and creativity, these elements are imposed through standardized guidelines rather than being naturally integrated into the student experience. This results in a system that dictates not just what students should learn, but how they should learn it—limiting genuine student agency.
A truly learner-centric approach would prioritize student choice, allowing individualized pacing and diverse learning paths. Instead, the NEP strengthens administrative control by placing decision-making power in the hands of policymakers, curriculum designers, and school authorities.
The Illusion of Flexibility
One of the most celebrated aspects of the NEP is its promise of subject flexibility, which allows students to move beyond rigid academic streams. While this idea is promising, systemic challenges make its implementation difficult.
Indian schools operate within fixed schedules, compulsory subjects, and an education system driven by standardized testing. The dominance of competitive exams and the test-preparation industry further restricts the feasibility of true student choice. Many schools, citing resource limitations and faculty constraints, determine subject availability based on administrative convenience rather than student interest.
Empirical evidence from student experiences supports this contradiction. A video on the YouTube channel Fixing Education highlights the vast subject choices theoretically available to students. However, thousands of students commented that their schools never offered them these options—either due to a lack of awareness or administrative constraints.
The NEP’s vision for flexibility remains aspirational because it does not provide concrete solutions to structural barriers. Without changes to mandatory examinations, rigid subject structures, and admission policies, student choice will remain a theoretical concept rather than an accessible reality.
Child-Centric in Name, Not in Practice
For education to be genuinely student-centric, it requires a fundamental shift in institutional structures. Expanding administrative oversight while branding policies as flexible does not equate to real student autonomy.
A truly child-centric model would include:
- Student-Designed Learning Pathways: Allowing students to contribute to their schedules and curriculum decisions.
- Self-Paced Learning: Moving away from rigid grade levels to accommodate different learning speeds.
- Flexible Attendance and Mental Health Support: Implementing policies that allow students to take breaks without academic penalties.
- Redefined Assessment Metrics: Reducing dependence on high-stakes standardized exams and adopting diverse evaluation methods that recognize different skills and intelligences.
The Need for Honest Educational Discourse
Language plays a crucial role in shaping education policy. Mislabeling administratively controlled reforms as “child-centric” creates an illusion of progress while systemic issues persist. This fosters complacency instead of pushing for real structural changes that empower students.
For education to truly prioritize student autonomy, policymakers must confront the systemic barriers that hinder meaningful reform. Until then, discussions around the NEP must remain critical, recognizing its limitations and the urgent need for deeper transformation.
