How States Formulate Their Own Education Policies

India is a vast and diverse country, and its education system reflects that diversity. While the central government sets broad national frameworks, individual states play a critical role in shaping what actually happens in classrooms. Education in India is a Concurrent List subject, meaning both the Union government and state governments share the responsibility of legislating and implementing education policy. This shared structure means that policy formulation at the state level is not just a bureaucratic exercise – it is a deeply political, cultural, and administrative process that varies significantly from one state to another.

The constitutional basis for state-level education policy 🔗

The foundation for state involvement in education was significantly strengthened by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, which transferred education from the State List to the Concurrent List. Before this amendment, education was exclusively a state subject, and the central government had limited authority to intervene. After 1976, both levels of government could legislate on education – but states retained substantial powers to adapt, modify, and supplement national frameworks to suit their local realities. This legal architecture is the reason why education in Maharashtra looks different from education in Karnataka or West Bengal, even though all three operate within the same national system.

It is also important to understand that policy does not get made in a vacuum. At the state level, policy instruments include dedicated state education policies, legislative acts, and government resolutions. Below the state, District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) and District Planning Committees contextualise and implement those policies locally. At the school level, School Management Committees (SMCs) represent the most direct form of community-led governance and serve as feedback mechanisms back into the system.

State-specific education policy efforts 🔗

Some states have gone far beyond simply adopting national guidelines – they have developed their own independent education policies rooted in their socio-cultural identity, linguistic context, and political priorities.

West Bengal’s independent state education policy 🔗

West Bengal is one of the clearest examples of a state asserting educational autonomy. The West Bengal government announced its own State Education Policy in 2023, declining several aspects of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The state has chosen to retain its existing 5+4+2+2 pattern of school education – one year of pre-primary, four years of primary (up to Class 4), four years of upper primary (Class V to VIII), two years of secondary, and two years of higher secondary – rather than transitioning to the NEP’s proposed 5+3+3+4 structure.

The decision is driven by a combination of equity concerns and cultural priorities. West Bengal’s government has expressed concern that a common entrance test for undergraduate admissions, as proposed under NEP 2020, could disadvantage rural students and prefers a decentralised admission approach. The state has also emphasised the importance of preserving Bengali language and culture through its education policy – a priority that shapes everything from the medium of instruction to curriculum design. West Bengal has indicated it intends to study education models from states like Maharashtra and Kerala before finalising its alternative approach, signalling a willingness to draw on peer-state experiences rather than simply following central directives.

Karnataka’s early and evolving policy stance 🔗

Karnataka has been at the forefront of education policy innovation for decades. In the 1990s, the state pioneered Nali Kali, a multi-grade, multi-level activity-based learning programme for early primary grades that was so successful it was later adopted by Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, with an updated version launched in 2018. Karnataka was also the first state in India to issue an implementation order related to NEP 2020, doing so in early August 2021. However, the state’s approach has not been static – the subsequent Congress-led state government identified shortcomings in NEP and made amendments, with the Karnataka High Court later affirming that courts will not interfere in state policy decisions unless fundamental rights are violated. Karnataka also has state-level instruments such as the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2020 – a legislative tool that addresses teacher deployment, independent of any national policy direction.

Maharashtra’s contextual policy adaptations 🔗

Maharashtra has consistently sought to adapt national education frameworks to its own needs rather than adopt them wholesale. On language policy, Maharashtra formed a dedicated language policy committee to examine how the three-language formula should be implemented in the state’s unique multilingual context. The state has also set up expert committees to deliberate on NEP 2020 implementation rather than issuing blanket adoption orders. Maharashtra’s approach reflects a broader pattern in Indian education federalism – states use committee structures and deliberation processes to exercise agency over how national policy is translated into state practice.

Commission-based policy development at the state level 🔗

One of the most important – and often underappreciated – mechanisms of state-level education policy formulation is the use of expert committees and review commissions. States do not simply sit down and write policy documents from scratch. They set up bodies of educationists, administrators, and subject experts to study existing conditions, review national frameworks, and recommend state-specific modifications.

This tradition has deep historical roots at the national level. The Kothari Commission (1964-1966), formally the National Education Commission, was set up by the Government of India to examine all aspects of the educational sector and recommend a general pattern for education development from the primary to the highest level. Its recommendations – including the call for a National Policy on Education and a 10+2+3 education structure – laid the groundwork that states then adapted for decades. In independent India, the three most consequential education commissions were the University Education Commission (1948-49), the Secondary Education Commission (1952-53), and the Indian Education Commission (1964-66). Each produced findings that state governments then interpreted and applied in ways suited to local conditions.

At the state level, the commission-based approach has continued to be the dominant model. In May 1990, a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Acharya Rammurti to review the National Policy on Education 1986 and recommend modifications. Shortly after, in July 1991, the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) – which includes state education ministers – was reconstituted under N. Janardan Reddy to take those recommendations further, eventually leading to the revised Programme of Action in 1992. This process illustrates how review committees, often with state government participation, shape the evolution of education policy at both levels of government.

At the purely state level, this means that when a government decides to revisit its education approach – in response to changing demographics, employment patterns, linguistic pressures, or national policy shifts – it typically constitutes a state-level review committee or task force. This body consults with teachers, school administrators, parents, academics, and civil society before submitting recommendations. The government then drafts a state policy document or issues Government Resolutions (GRs) that translate those recommendations into administrative action.

The role of SCERTs and DIETs 🔗

State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs) play a central role in this process. They are the technical arm through which states develop curriculum frameworks, design teacher training programmes, and produce textbooks aligned with state policy. When a state committee recommends a shift in pedagogical approach or a change in the school structure, it is the SCERT that translates that policy direction into classroom-level implementation materials. District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) then carry this work to the district level, training teachers and monitoring implementation. Block Resource Centres and Cluster Resource Centres provide further localised support within their jurisdiction, ensuring that even remote schools are reached by state policy decisions.

Adoption and adaptation of the National Policy on Education (1986) 🔗

The National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986, introduced under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, remains one of the most influential reference documents in Indian education history. It placed special emphasis on removing disparities in educational access and opportunity – particularly for women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. It introduced the concept of a National System of Education, calling for a common structure across states, a national curriculum framework with a common core and flexible local components, and quality standards that would apply uniformly regardless of a child’s location.

Critically, the 1976 constitutional amendment had already included education in the Concurrent List, which created the formal space for the 1986 policy to be a cooperative effort rather than a central diktat. States were expected to align with NPE 1986 – and most did – but they retained the authority to make context-specific adjustments.

How states adopted NPE 1986 with modifications 🔗

The NPE 1986 explicitly envisioned its implementation as a collaborative exercise. The Programme of Action that followed the policy was designed to allow implementing agencies to make modifications on the basis of experience and emerging scenarios, with implementation framed as a cooperative effort between the Centre and the states with full community and teacher involvement.

In practice, this meant different things in different states. Most states adopted the NPE’s 10+2+3 structure for school and higher education, which had already been recommended by the Kothari Commission and was gaining wide acceptance. However, the three-language formula – which required the teaching of a regional language, Hindi, and English at the secondary level – was not uniformly applied. The NPE 1986 maintained the three-language formula nationwide, except in Tamil Nadu, which adopted a two-language policy (Tamil and English), a pattern that has persisted to this day. Similarly, states differed in how they implemented Operation Blackboard (aimed at improving primary school infrastructure), the open school system, and the focus on vocational education.

The 1986 policy was itself modified in 1992 after the Rammurti Committee and Janardan Reddy Committee reviews, resulting in a revised Programme of Action. This cycle of national policy → review committee → modification → re-implementation is the central mechanism through which education policy in India – at both the national and state levels – evolves over time.

States pushing back on NEP 2020 🔗

The same dynamic that shaped states’ response to NPE 1986 is visible today in relation to the National Education Policy 2020. States such as Kerala, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu have declined to adopt NEP 2020 in its entirety. Tamil Nadu has been the most categorical, refusing NEP outright and retaining its two-language policy. States fear that NEP’s emphasis on a National Curriculum Framework developed centrally by NCERT diminishes their role in curriculum design – a concern that goes to the heart of federalism in education.

The tension is further complicated by finance. The central government made adoption of NEP 2020’s provisions – including the three-language formula – a prerequisite for states to receive central funding under the PM SHRI and Samagra Shiksha schemes, a condition Tamil Nadu rejected so strongly it filed a suit in the Supreme Court. This illustrates that state-level education policy formulation is never just a technical matter – it is deeply intertwined with questions of fiscal autonomy, cultural identity, and political authority.

Why state-level education policy formulation matters 🔗

Understanding how states formulate their own education policies is essential for anyone working in the field of education management and administration. It reveals that policy is not a finished product handed down from above – it is a living process of negotiation, review, and contextualisation. States bring their demographic realities, linguistic profiles, socio-economic conditions, and political priorities to every policy decision they make.

The existence of structures like SCERTs, DIETs, state-level review committees, School Management Committees, and government resolutions means that there are multiple entry points at which educators, administrators, and civil society can engage with and influence education policy. A teacher who understands this system is better placed to navigate it – and potentially to contribute to shaping it.

What do you think? Given that education is a concurrent subject in India, do you think states should have greater autonomy to design their own education systems, even if it means significant variation across state borders? And how should the balance be struck between preserving local cultural and linguistic identity and ensuring national standards of quality and equity in education?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_India
2. https://www.gktoday.in/national-education-policies-1968-and-1986/
3. https://www.mantra4change.org/blog/indias-education-policy-landscape/
4. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/new-education-policy-in-west-bengal
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Policy_2020
6. https://politicsforindia.com/national-education-policy-and-indian-federalism/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kothari_Commission
8. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/mangalore-university/philosophy-of-education/education-commissions-in-india/38790061
9. https://educerecentre.com/national-policy-of-education-1986/
10. https://www.education.gov.in/en/national-policy-education-1986-modified-1992
11. https://onlinenotebank.wordpress.com/2022/01/15/new-education-policy-1986/
12. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/npe.pdf
13. https://www.pw.live/teaching/exams/national-policy-on-education-1986