Centre-State Educational Policies: Governance and Challenges

Managing education in a country as vast and diverse as India is no small feat. With over 250 million school-going students, hundreds of languages, and deep regional disparities, the question of who governs education – and how – is far more than an administrative formality. It sits at the heart of how India shapes its future. The relationship between the Centre and the states on educational matters is a dynamic, sometimes contentious, but ultimately essential partnership that defines the quality and direction of learning across the country.

The constitutional foundation: who is in charge? 🔗

India’s Constitution distributes legislative power between the Union and the states through three lists under the Seventh Schedule: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. Education has not always held the same position in this framework. Before 1976, education was exclusively a State subject, meaning only state governments could legislate on educational matters, while the Centre played only an advisory role.

That changed decisively with the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, often called the “Mini Constitution” due to the scale of its changes. Education was moved from the State List to the Concurrent List, along with forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and administration of justice. This meant that both Parliament and state legislatures became competent to legislate on education, though in the event of a conflict, the central law prevails. The intent was to enable the Centre to set national standards and coordinate education policy more effectively, while still leaving states the flexibility to legislate based on local needs.

Federal and state responsibilities in education 🔗

Under the current framework, the Central Government and state governments share responsibility for education, but their roles are distinct in practice. The Centre – through the Ministry of Education – sets the overarching national policy, frames regulatory standards through bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC), the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and funds large-scale national programmes.

State governments, on the other hand, are responsible for day-to-day administration: running government schools, recruiting and managing teachers, maintaining infrastructure, and implementing curricula at the ground level. This division is logical in theory – the Centre provides the framework and resources, while states execute. In practice, however, it often creates friction, especially when central guidelines conflict with state priorities or resources.

Part XI of the Constitution covers both legislative and administrative relations, while Part XII deals with financial relations. These provisions collectively shape how education is governed at both levels. The Constitution establishes a structure where legislative powers are categorised under a Union List, a State List, and a Concurrent List, with education now falling under joint jurisdiction.

The regulatory framework: laws shaping centre-state educational relations 🔗

Several key pieces of legislation define how the Centre and states interact on education.

The Right to Education Act, 2009 🔗

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) is a landmark central law that made free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14. It mandates that both the Centre and states share the financial responsibility for implementation. The Act sets minimum standards for schools – from teacher qualifications to infrastructure requirements – that all states must comply with. This created a binding obligation on states to align their education systems with central norms, even when resource constraints made that challenging.

The role of the 7th Schedule 🔗

The Constitution divides legislative power between the Centre and states concerning both territories and the subjects of legislation. Under the Concurrent List arrangement for education, the Centre can legislate on any matter related to educational standards, coordination, and the declaration of institutions as institutions of national importance. States retain the power to run and regulate their own schools, universities, and teacher training systems – but always within the framework set by Parliament and central regulatory authorities.

Advisory and regulatory bodies 🔗

The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), one of the oldest advisory bodies in India, facilitates consultation between the Centre and states on education policy. Similarly, the Finance Commission plays a crucial role in recommending the distribution of taxes between the Union and states, with implications for how much states can actually spend on education. Institutions such as the Inter-State Council, Finance Commission, and NITI Aayog are central to ensuring smooth coordination between the Centre and states, though many experts argue these bodies need to be strengthened further.

Funding and resource allocation in education 🔗

Money is where the centre-state relationship becomes most tangible – and most contested. The financial architecture of Indian school education is built largely around Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS), where the Centre and states share costs in agreed proportions.

Samagra Shiksha: the flagship scheme 🔗

The most significant such programme is Samagra Shiksha, launched in 2018 by the Ministry of Education. It unified three earlier schemes – Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), and Teacher Education – into a single integrated programme covering school education from pre-primary to Class 12. The scheme covers over 1.16 million schools and benefits around 15.6 crore students and 57 lakh teachers in government and government-aided institutions.

The funding split under Samagra Shiksha illustrates how the Centre attempts to account for regional disparities. For most states and union territories with a legislature, the ratio is 60:40, with the Centre contributing 60% and the state 40%. For North-Eastern and Himalayan states, the Centre bears 90% of the cost and the state contributes only 10%, while union territories without a legislature are fully funded by the Centre. This differential funding structure reflects an attempt at equity – poorer and more remote states receive greater central support.

The 6% GDP target and persistent underfunding 🔗

Despite these efforts, India has long struggled to meet its own spending targets. India is yet to achieve the NEP-proposed 6% of GDP in total education expenditure. This gap in funding has direct consequences: inadequate school infrastructure, teacher shortages, and limited access to quality learning tools – particularly in rural areas. States, especially less developed ones, often find themselves unable to release their matching share of centrally sanctioned funds on time, leading to delays in scheme implementation.

States frequently claim that they do not receive their fair share of resources from the Centre, and disputes over revenue-sharing formulas are common. Less developed states often feel disadvantaged by existing allocation mechanisms, which do not always adequately account for local conditions and needs.

Challenges in coordination and policy implementation 🔗

Even when policies are well-designed and funding is available, the gap between central intent and state-level reality can be significant. The challenges in centre-state educational coordination are both structural and political.

Political divergence between Centre and states 🔗

India’s multi-party democracy means that the party in power at the Centre is often different from those governing states. This political divergence affects educational policy in practical ways. The implementation of education policy will largely depend on the active cooperation of states, and this is no easy task in the face of political polarization and distrust between the Centre and states, with several opposition-ruled states expressing reservations. Opposition-ruled states may delay or partially implement centrally driven reforms they disagree with, not necessarily out of administrative inability, but for political reasons.

The top-down approach and state concerns 🔗

A recurring criticism is that central policy-making is insufficiently consultative. RTI documents have revealed a largely top-down approach by the Union Education Ministry in implementing NEP 2020, with several state representatives’ concerns being largely ignored, and consultations with states appearing mostly procedural. When states feel bypassed in policy design, their commitment to implementation naturally weakens.

Diversity as a governance challenge 🔗

Socio-economic and cultural diversity across states adds complexity, making it difficult to ensure uniform implementation. A policy that works in Kerala, with its high literacy and strong education infrastructure, may require entirely different conditions to succeed in Bihar or Jharkhand. The diversity of India – in language, culture, economic development, and administrative capacity – means that no single national framework can be applied identically everywhere.

Language policy disputes 🔗

Language is a particularly sensitive flashpoint. The NEP’s three-language formula has created agitation in non-Hindi-speaking states, particularly Tamil Nadu, which has historically adhered to a two-language system and has strongly resisted any perceived imposition of Hindi. Such disputes reveal the deeper tension between national uniformity and regional identity – a tension that any centre-state educational policy must navigate carefully.

Recent developments: NEP 2020 and the push for collaboration 🔗

The National Education Policy 2020, approved by the Union Cabinet on 29 July 2020, is the most comprehensive reform of India’s education system since 1986. It replaced the previous National Policy on Education and introduced a sweeping reimagination of schooling – from a new 5+3+3+4 curricular structure to emphasis on foundational literacy, mother-tongue instruction in early grades, and a multidisciplinary approach to higher education.

NEP 2020 and centre-state dynamics 🔗

Since education is a Concurrent List subject, NEP 2020 is advisory in nature – it cannot compel states to comply. States vary in adoption, and lack of coordination weakens the unified vision needed to achieve the policy’s initial objectives. States like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have raised objections to specific provisions, while others like Assam and Andhra Pradesh moved swiftly to implement the policy.

NEP 2020 requires a well-defined financial strategy that establishes contributions from both the state and central governments, and its successful implementation depends on political will and inter-state collaboration to overcome regional disparities.

New mechanisms for collaboration 🔗

To facilitate implementation, the government has set up several committees including the National Implementation Committee, State Implementation Committees, and Expert Committees for different areas of education. Central bodies have also developed a new National Curriculum Framework, guidelines on teacher training, and digital learning platforms like DIKSHA and SWAYAM to create shared educational infrastructure that states can use. As of 2025, NEP 2020 implementation is progressing through collaboration between the Centre and state governments, with state-level curriculum revisions underway in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi, among others.

The Malaviya Mission and teacher development 🔗

The Malaviya Mission Teacher Training Programme has trained over 2.5 lakh faculty members, focusing on areas like AI, cybersecurity, and entrepreneurship – a central initiative directly impacting state-level teaching capacity. In 2024-25, for the first time in any academic year tracked by UDISE+, the total number of teachers crossed the 1 crore mark, signalling progress in addressing teacher availability – one of the most critical bottlenecks in implementation.

The path forward: cooperative federalism in education 🔗

India’s constitutional framers envisioned what they called cooperative federalism – a system where the Centre and states, rather than competing, work in tandem toward shared goals. In education, this means the Centre providing policy direction, financial support, and national standards, while states retain the administrative authority and contextual adaptability to make those policies actually work on the ground.

Conscious recognition of the federal character of India’s governance is crucial to protect its national character. Extreme centralization stifles state innovation and local responsiveness; excessive fragmentation undermines national standards and equity. The challenge is to find the balance – and to build the institutional trust and communication channels that allow both levels of government to work toward a common educational vision. A phased implementation approach that proves effective action in the right direction is more likely to attract all actors to converge their efforts than sweeping mandates handed down without consultation.

Ultimately, the quality of education that a child receives – whether in a government school in rural Odisha or a city school in Bengaluru – depends not just on policy documents and budgets, but on how well the Centre and states learn to work together. That is the real test of India’s educational federalism.

What do you think? Should education be moved back to the exclusive State List to give states greater autonomy, or does national oversight through the Concurrent List better serve the goal of educational equity across India? And how can the Centre design consultation mechanisms that genuinely incorporate state concerns before rolling out nationwide education reforms?

References

1. https://prepp.in/question/education-was-brought-into-the-concurrent-list-by-642ab35b608c092a4caa79f0
2. https://testbook.com/question-answer/after-the-42nd-amendment-education-is-placed-unde–691b2bdb2c1ee6d56b553a0e
3. https://www.education.gov.in/
4. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/centre-state-relations
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_India
6. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A2009-35.pdf
7. https://www.clearias.com/centre-state-relations/
8. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/centre-state-relations/
9. https://samagra.education.gov.in/about.html
10. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/samagra-shiksha-scheme/
11. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/samagra-shiksha-scheme-india
12. https://www.ispp.org.in/understanding-the-new-education-policy-in-india/
13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386371554_National_Education_Policy-2020_Prospects_and_Challenges
14. https://thefederal.com/the-federal-focus/national-education-policy-modi-govt-nep2020-state-universities-213642
15. https://www.impriindia.com/insights/nep-indian-education/
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Policy_2020
17. https://educationforallinindia.com/national-education-policy-nep-2020-after-that/
18. https://eduerp.ai/nep-2020-education-policy/
19. https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/center-state-relations
20. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279367