Assessing Current Educational Structures

No State Achieves 'Daksh': What the PGI 2.0 Really Tells Us About School Education in India The just-released Performance Grading Index (PGI) 2.0 report is a mirror held up to the deep structure of India’s school education system. While the report highlights Chandigarh’s “distinction” with a score of 703/1000, the more telling story lies in what no one achieved: not a single state or UT has reached the top three performance bands; Daksh, Utkarsh, or Atti-Uttam. In other words, no public system in India has yet created a school education model that can be held up as fully exemplary across learning outcomes, governance, equity, and teacher training. What’s worth acknowledging is the narrowing gap between top and bottom performers, from 51% in 2017–18 to 42% in 2023–24. Bihar, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh still rank lowest, yet many are showing year-on-year gains, indicating incremental system-level changes. However, this closing gap should not lull us into complacency. It is narrowing, yes, but from a dismally low baseline. Deconstructing the PGI: More than a Metric The PGI evaluates performance using 57 indicators across six domains: learning outcomes, access, infrastructure, equity, governance, and teacher education. These indicators are ambitious and aligned in spirit with the aspirations of the National Education Policy 2020. But three critical concerns emerge: 1. Equity and Governance Remain Chronic Weak Spots: While some states like Kerala have shown strength in teacher education (scoring 91.4/100), others falter significantly in equity-related outcomes and administrative processes. For example, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu posted steep declines in 2023–24, reflecting slippages in governance. This aligns with past research (e.g., Ramachandran et al., 2017) that shows how systemic governance failures; vacancies, poor accountability mechanisms, and data manipulation, deeply affect learning. 2. Improvement ≠ Transformation: The best-performing regions still hover within the middle-tier band of Prachesta-1. This suggests that while incremental reforms and mission-mode programs (such as PM SHRI or Samagra Shiksha) are helping states move upward, we are yet to see transformative change that can enable even a single state to reach the Daksh level. This is a sobering reminder that policy ambition needs to be matched by implementation architecture. 3. Data Quality and Context Sensitivity: PGI relies heavily on administrative data. But does this data reflect ground realities? Are teacher training sessions counted as completed even if they are online, short-term, or poorly attended? Is infrastructure being measured in terms of quality or mere presence? Without contextual and qualitative validation, we risk mistaking form for substance. #SchoolEducation #EduPolicy #PGI2024 #NEP2020 #TeacherTraining #Governance #PublicEducation #EducationReform #LearningOutcomes #SystemChange #EvidenceBasedPolicy

The current education system cannot sustain. We may not yet fully understand what the next model will look like, but one direction is becoming increasingly evident. The present structure will have to change. Many people argue that AI hallucinates or that it is not perfect, therefore it cannot replace human capability. That is the wrong frame. The real question is not whether AI will take over. The real question is how the economic and cognitive landscape is being reorganized. For the last century, education systems have largely trained people to perform structured, repeatable cognitive tasks. A large share of these tasks can be done by AI systems. Perhaps 80 to 90 percent of routine analytical and administrative work falls into this category. There will, of course, remain areas that require deeper human judgment. Highly complex intellectual work, frontier research, and many forms of physical or craft-based labor will continue to depend heavily on humans. But the middle layer of routine cognitive processing is already being automated. This raises a strategic question for education policy. If machines can execute structured reasoning, summarization, coding, drafting, and analysis, then what exactly should humans be trained to do? The current schooling model still prioritizes memorization, standardized testing, and passive consumption of information. The school diploma will have to evolve as a labor market entry credential. High school education will have to focus on judgment, creativity, collaboration, and the ability to navigate complex social and scientific problems. School education, therefore, needs a structural redesign. Children should spend far more time debating ideas, writing arguments, analyzing social issues, solving scientific problems, and communicating their reasoning. The ability to ask questions and challenge assumptions will become more valuable than the ability to recall information. Universities will likely face the earliest disruption. Over time, universities have evolved into large administrative bureaucracies with expanding campuses, rising tuition, and limited accountability for real skill outcomes. That model becomes increasingly difficult to justify when knowledge is digitally accessible, and AI systems can act as personalized tutors. A smaller number of universities will become research institutions focusing on frontier science, doctoral training, and knowledge creation. The majority of practical skill development may gradually shift toward strong technical and vocational systems. These institutions will function more like advanced skill colleges. Professors and educational administrators understandably are resisting this transition. Jobs, institutional prestige, and financial incentives are deeply embedded in the current model. But they won't be able to stop this change.

We Keep Hearing NEP, NCF, SAFAL, PARAKH, HPC… But How Are They Actually Connected? In the last few years, terms like NEP, NCF, PARAKH, SAFAL, and HPC have become part of everyday conversations across schools, training sessions, publishing, and policy discussions. Yet a crucial question often remains unasked: Are these frameworks simply coexisting, or is there a deeper connection? In truth, they function as one integrated reform ecosystem. Here's how: 🔹 NEP 2020 – National Education Policy The overarching vision that calls for holistic, flexible, multidisciplinary, competency-based education, moving India away from rote memorisation towards real understanding and application. 🔹 NCF – National Curriculum Framework The curriculum roadmap that operationalises NEP’s vision by defining what and how learners should learn across the Foundational, Preparatory, Middle and Secondary stages. 🔹 HPC – Holistic Progress Card A transformational tool aligned with NEP and NCF that shifts reporting from marks and grades to a 360-degree view of learner growth, including competencies, skills, values, and socio-emotional development. 🔹 PARAKH – Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development The proposed national-level assessment regulator that redefines how India evaluates learning, ensuring fairness, coherence and competency-based assessment across boards. 🔹 SAFAL – Structured Assessment for Analysing Learning A CBSE initiative translating NEP’s assessment principles into low-stakes, diagnostic, competency-based evaluations for classes 3, 5 and 8 to track progress and guide learning—not label students. Together, these are not isolated guidelines but a unified reform narrative: NEP provides the vision. → NCF designs the learning experiences. → HPC captures holistic student growth.→ SAFAL measures learning meaningfully. → PARAKH ensures alignment, quality and coherence at a national scale. The outcome? A system where curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and reporting finally work in harmony—speaking the same language of conceptual clarity, real-world application, holistic development, and learner wellbeing. If we want this transformation to reach every classroom, it is essential not just to use these terms but to truly understand the powerful interconnection that binds them together. #NEP2020 #NCF #PARAKH #SAFAL #HPC #CBSE #NCERT #EducationReform #HolisticLearning #CompetencyBasedEducation #AssessmentReform #SchoolLeadership

Education systems across Europe are constantly evolving to meet the diverse needs of learners and respond to emerging challenges. The document “Structural Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training Systems in Europe – 2018” serves as a comprehensive resource, providing over 35 key indicators to assess the performance and structure of national education systems. These indicators span six critical areas: early childhood education and care (ECEC), achievement in basic skills, early leaving from education and training (ELET), higher education, graduate employability, and learning mobility. For M&E professionals and humanitarian workers engaged in education initiatives, this report offers a robust framework for evaluating policies and practices that directly impact learner outcomes and societal progress. It aligns with the strategic goals set by the European Commission’s ‘ET 2020’ framework, which seeks to drive improvements in participation, educational attainment, and employability across Europe by 2020. This makes it not only a powerful tool for evaluating educational structures but also for shaping policies aimed at fostering more inclusive, accessible, and equitable education systems. Each section of the report provides a detailed breakdown of relevant indicators, offering insights into key factors such as teacher professionalization, the use of performance data in school evaluations, policies for disadvantaged students, and the integration of work placements in higher education. For practitioners looking to understand how education systems can be improved to serve diverse populations, this document highlights effective strategies and offers comparative data across multiple countries, allowing for a deep dive into the strengths and weaknesses of various education policies. This report stands as an essential guide for anyone committed to improving educational outcomes in Europe. By providing a thorough analysis of the policies shaping education and training, it offers actionable insights that can help drive significant improvements in access, quality, and learner success.

Let's be honest about where we stand in education's response to AI. When I suggest assessment approaches that make integrity intrinsic rather than enforced, two institutional responses inevitably follow: "These ideal assessments don't really exist in practice." "Even if they did, they would require too much work to implement at scale." Both objections contain uncomfortable truths we need to address head-on. The first objection reflects our struggle to reimagine assessment beyond traditional models. Yet educators like Mary-Ann Winkelmes (Transparency in Learning and Teaching) and scholars studying authentic assessment have documented numerous approaches that naturally discourage shortcuts: projects requiring documented iterations, assignments connecting course concepts to personal contexts, and collaborative problem-solving tasks with individual accountability mechanisms. But the second objection cuts deeper - these approaches do require more time and resources than standardized tests or essays. In systems where faculty teach hundreds of students per semester while juggling research and service requirements, who has capacity to provide the feedback and mentorship these approaches demand? This is where principle #8 from Gallant and Rettinger (“The Opposite of Cheating”) becomes particularly relevant: "Cheating is a symptom of other problems." Perhaps the real issue isn't students' moral disengagement, but institutional structures that make meaningful assessment practically impossible. What if we acknowledge that our reliance on AI detection isn't just a technological response, but a symptom of systemic constraints? The judgment-action gap exists not just for students but for institutions that know what effective education requires yet cannot implement it under current conditions. This suggests that addressing academic integrity in the AI era isn't merely a matter of better technology or pedagogy - it's about confronting fundamental questions about educational resources, faculty workloads, class sizes, and institutional priorities. The uncomfortable reality: We continue using detection tools not because they're pedagogically sound, but because they're expedient within systems designed for efficiency rather than effectiveness. I'm curious: Has your institution made structural changes - not just technological ones - to address academic integrity challenges in the age of AI? What would it take to create systems where the most effective approach is also the most practical one? James Hutson, PhD, PhD Timothy Okunoye Shaun F. Richards, PhD Ricardo Lucas Fernández Enaam Al-Quader Taciana de LiraSilva, PhD Dr. Dayamudra Dennehy Marta Pinto (she/her) MEL SELLICK Armand Ruci M.A, M.Ed Stephen Ghigliotty Andrew Maynard Mike Kentz Marnie Hazelton, Ed.D.

Lost, Educated, Executing – Yet Still Colonised? In India, a stark reality persists despite the progression from being lost to educated and then executing – a journey that ideally leads to consistent value creation for society. However, the current education system mirrors a colonial framework focused on sorting, ranking, and filtering individuals. This system, originally meant to produce compliant clerks, now churns out anxious "toppers" and weary educators, perpetuating a cycle of conformity rather than fostering true mastery and purpose. Despite the rhetoric of NEP 2020 introducing new paradigms, the underlying mindset remains antiquated, emphasizing centralized control and superficial reforms over genuine transformation. The prevalent fixation on marks over mastery, aversion to questioning, and the undervaluing of educators as nation-builders underscore a systemic flaw that prioritizes formal degrees over meaningful direction and skills devoid of passion. This isn't merely a policy lapse; it's a moral failing encompassing governments, regulatory bodies, universities, industry leaders, recruiters, and even parents who inadvertently perpetuate a culture fixated on grades rather than learning outcomes. The prevailing scenario relegates numerous students to a fate of aimless qualifications and soulless abilities, failing to nurture their true potential. To steer towards an Atmanirbhar Bharat, a shift is imperative – a decolonization of the educational landscape encompassing the curriculum, assessment methods, and the prevailing mindset. It beckons a transition towards apprenticeships, problem-solving approaches, community engagement, MSME involvement, and mentorship akin to Gurukul 2.0, transitioning these practices from the periphery to the core of education. The pivotal query no longer revolves around the feasibility of change but rather hinges on our collective courage to overhaul a system deeply entrenched in archaic norms. The onus lies on each stakeholder to break free from the shackles of tradition and embrace a redefined educational ethos that truly empowers the next generation.

Higher education prides itself on teaching students to think. But do our assessments really require it? We worry about students using generative AI to bypass learning. But isn’t our current approach to assessment an even bigger structural problem? You know the drill: Essays that favour structure over substance. Exams that reward memorization over insight. Reflections that are generic and formulaic rather than reflective. Of course, learning academic conventions can be valuable in its own right. Pivotal, even. But something isn’t quite right. The uncomfortable truth is that we’ve been assessing completion rather than comprehension for a long time. How much effort do we really put into teaching students to do the actual work - rather than just measuring the output? (there are noticeable exceptions, of course) Maybe AI isn’t exposing student shortcuts. Maybe it’s exposing ours.

Education Is Not Broken. It Is Perfectly Aligned With the Wrong Rewards. Most people assume an education system is defined by its curriculum, its buildings, or the certificates it issues. That assumption misses the point. An education system is defined by what it rewards. The dominant model rewards compliance, recall, and endurance. Sit still long enough, repeat approved information on cue, and a credential is issued. The problem is not that people are uneducated. The problem is that symbols of readiness are granted long before real competence exists. The system I have designed starts from a different premise. Learning and credentialing are intentionally separated. Theory has value, but recognition is earned only when competence is demonstrated in real environments. Not simulations. Not rehearsed assessments. Real work, documented through practical portfolios that show decision making, execution, and growth over time. At its core is a holistic framework that integrates problem solving, critical thinking, skills development, values and ethics, research and inquiry, emotional maturity, cultural awareness, environmental responsibility, and digital literacy. These are not aspirational ideals. They function as structural requirements that shape curriculum design, pedagogy, and assessment. The learning process is consequential and experiential. Learners work on real problems connected to food systems, energy, waste, employment, and community resilience. Failure is not penalised; it is analysed. Success is measured by improved outcomes, not polished submissions. The central assessment question is simple: can this person think clearly, act responsibly, and deliver under real-world constraints? Institutionally, the model shifts away from large centralised systems toward community-based learning hubs and cottage schools. Governance is local, scalable, and resilient. Education is re-embedded in productive communities rather than isolated in administrative structures. Philosophically, this system is not designed to manufacture conformity or ideological alignment. It is built to develop independent thinkers who can function within existing systems without being absorbed by them. Ethics are not performed for approval; they emerge from personal responsibility and inner coherence. This is not a reform of the current system. It is a parallel architecture grounded in clear priorities: skills before symbols, contribution before credentials, wisdom before ideology, and decentralisation before control. If we want different outcomes, we must stop adjusting the classroom and start redesigning the system. #EducationReform #FutureOfEducation #SkillsBasedLearning #ThoughtLeadership #DecentralisedEducation #RealWorldLearning #HumanDevelopment

“This is more than unmet need – it is structural harm.” The National Education Futures report 2025 from the The Foundation for Education Development (FED) is one of the clearest, most compelling calls to action I’ve read in recent years. “Current structures too often pathologise neurodivergence, SEMH, speech and language difficulties and other special educational needs – positioning them as problems to be managed rather than valuing them as part of human diversity… Many rigid approaches to critical areas like behaviour and attendance do not simply fail neurodivergent students; they actively cause harm.” Let that sink in: we are not just failing to meet needs – we are causing harm. As someone who trains teachers and coaches in understanding executive function and creating neuroinclusive environments, I see this every day. Our current system rewards compliance, conformity, and timed recall over connection, creativity, and genuine learning. Rigid behaviour policies. Overstimulating classrooms. High-stakes, memory-based assessments. All of these disproportionately harm the very children we should be protecting and nurturing. And yet, the solutions are right in front of us: - A National Inclusion Framework with shared, enforceable expectations - Curriculum reform to reflect diverse histories and learner profiles - Workforce training built on strengths, not deficits - Properly resourced, place-based partnerships and wraparound support This is not abstract policy. It's about building a future where every child feels seen, safe, and supported—not squeezed into a system that was never built for them. I’m constantly surprised by how few people in education are familiar with the FED’s excellent work. If you care about the future of education in the UK, I urge you to: ✅ Read this report ✅ Sign up to the FED mailing list ✅ Join the National Education Assembly ✅ Share it with someone who still thinks the current system ‘just needs more discipline’ Change isn’t just possible. It’s already happening—in pockets. The FED’s work offers us the blueprint to make that change systemic, sustained, and just. Let’s be the generation that stops blaming children—and starts building the structures they need to thrive. #Neurodiversity #EducationReform #StructuralInclusion #ExecutiveFunction #FutureOfEducation #Neuroinclusion #Belonging #FEDReport2025 #InclusionByDesign #UniversalDesignForLearning