The National Education Policy, 2020 emphasises the acquisition of foundational literacy and numeracy by Standard 2. Yet, little is known about how the related initiatives have translated into changes in teaching-learning in the classroom. In this note, Bhattacharjea, Bhutada and Bisht share insights from a study involving classroom observations and teacher interviews across eight states in India – on aspects such as classroom composition, teachers’ attitudes towards young children, and teaching methods. 

The National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 frames universal acquisition of Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (FLN) as an urgent national mission, stating that “The rest of this Policy will become relevant for our students only if this most basic learning requirement (that is reading, writing, and arithmetic at the foundational level) is first achieved”. Since the release of NEP, central and state governments have put enormous efforts into rolling out programmes intended to meet the goal of ensuring that every child acquires FLN by Standard 2, the end of the newly designated ‘foundational stage’ of education for 3-8-year-olds.

The National Initiative for Proficiency in Reading with Understanding and Numeracy (NIPUN) Bharat Mission provides a roadmap for achieving these objectives. The extensive guidelines published in 2021 lay out the Mission’s implementation, defining the learning goals that must be achieved at every step of the foundational stage to ensure that this objective is achieved by 2026-27. It also lays out desired classroom teaching-learning practices, such as creating an inclusive classroom environment, using innovative play- and activity-based approaches, and ensuring availability and usage of Teaching Learning Material (TLM), among others.

This national mission has subsequently been adapted and contextualised at the state level, and as of January 2025, all states and Union Territories in India are implementing FLN programmes in some form. Capacity-building programmes on FLN for teachers and interventions such as ‘Vidya Pravesh’, a three-month play-based school preparation module for students entering Standard 1, are common across most states, while other initiatives may be specific to one or a subset of states.

The Annual Survey of Education Report (ASER) 2024 provides some indicators of the percolation of these policy pushes to individual schools. More than 80% of the 15,728 schools across the country that were visited as part of the survey reported having received a directive from the government to implement FLN activities for Standards 1-3 in both the current and previous academic years, and TLM other than textbooks was observed in more than 85% Standard 1 and 2 classrooms. The survey data also show that in over 75% of the schools visited, at least one teacher had received in-person training on FLN.

However, little information is available – either in ASER or from other sources – on how these initiatives have translated into changes in teaching-learning in the classroom. In mid-2024, prior to the rollout of the ASER 2024 survey, an ASER Centre team set out to explore this question. We did so in two ways. First, a classroom observation tool was designed and piloted to capture key elements of the classroom environment and the nature of the interactions taking place within it. Based on these observations, an interview guide was developed to explore observed teachers’ perspectives on teaching and learning, understand what they thought had changed post NEP 2020, and what challenges remained. This ‘deep dive’ exercise was conducted in Standard 2 classrooms in 24 schools spread across one district each in eight states, reflecting a variety of geographies and socioeconomic and educational conditions (Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal). In each district, a ‘convenience’ sample of one remote rural school, one well-connected rural school, and one urban school was chosen. A total of 45 lessons were observed in these 24 classrooms, and subsequently conversations were held with all 24 teachers. In this note, we describe key findings and takeaways from this exercise. 

Classroom composition

The Standard 2 students and teachers whom we observed were studying and working in teaching-learning contexts that varied enormously from school to school, depending on the number of classrooms and teachers available, and the number of students in each grade. These differences had less to do with physical infrastructure (all these schools had water, electricity, toilets, and other key facilities) than with the combination of grades sitting together.

While the RTE (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009) and NEP 2020-prescribed teacher to student ratio of 1:30 was exceeded in only three of these 24 classrooms¹ (one each in West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh), the grade composition varied enormously. Only 10 classrooms were exclusively for Standard 2 students, while the other 14 were multigrade. The schools visited as part of ASER 2024 had a similar proportion of multigrade Standard 2 classrooms (more than 60%). In our sample of 24 schools, regardless of class strength, all three classrooms visited in Assam and West Bengal were single grade classrooms for Standard 2; in Rajasthan and Odisha, all three classrooms were multigrade. In most other states the larger urban school in the sample had single grade classrooms, while in the rural remote and rural well-connected schools, they were multigrade.

Moreover, teaching was by no means teachers’ only responsibility. In one school, one of the two teachers appointed was also the acting Head Teacher, and was additionally responsible for the newly created pre-primary class. In many schools, teachers told us that the focus on collecting and documenting student-level outcomes has increased time spent on reporting at the expense of time available for teaching.

Teachers and teaching

Despite this, in almost all of the classrooms we visited, teachers were present and involved with teaching-learning activities: what is known as teachers’ ‘time on task’² was very high. Even in cases where the teacher was not actively working with the Standard 2 students who were the focus of our observation, this was often because they were working with another grade sitting in the same classroom or attending to other school tasks, such as checking notebooks.

We summarise below some key aspects of these teachers’ teaching practice that we observed and subsequently talked to them about, categorised into two broad areas: attitudes towards young children in the ‘foundational’ stage, and teaching methods and materials used in the classroom.

Attitude towards young children

Our conversations with teachers made it clear that one key message that has been understood and accepted is that the early years of school require a different approach to teaching- learning. Without explicit prompting, many teachers spoke about what makes the ‘foundational’ age group special and why young children need to be treated differently. They articulated the importance of the transition from home to school and described how young children needed to enjoy coming to school and not feel afraid, before focusing on their studies. It was interesting to note that this conception of teaching-learning extended beyond the initial few months after children join school, to the entire foundational stage of schooling.

Notably, these attitudes were not only articulated during the interview, they were also visible in teachers’ actions in the classroom. Most teachers knew their students by name and many exhibited warm, positive behaviours towards them, such as praising or encouraging one or more students and smiling, laughing or joking with them. Although some amount of verbal abuse, physical punishment, and other forms of what we categorise as ‘discouraging’ behaviours were also observed, for the most part teachers’ treatment of these young students did seem to reflect an overall understanding that gentleness and warmth is more important than discipline at this early stage in their school trajectories.

However, this attitude did not always extend to the belief that all children can learn. Despite these feelings of kindness and understanding towards young children, many teachers continued to categorise students into ‘bright’ students who can learn and ‘weak’ ones who cannot. As discussed below, students’ abilities and learning levels did not appear to inform observed teachers’ overall approach to classroom teaching.

Teaching methods

At first glance, the teaching-learning activities taking place in these classrooms look quite similar to traditional chalk-and-talk methods. Across the 215 ‘snapshots’³ taken in these 45 lessons, teachers were most often doing whole-group teaching activities, mainly speaking to or asking questions to the whole [Standard 2] class (referred to as ‘one-way’ or ‘two-way’ interaction). More than three-quarters of the time, they were standing or sitting in front of the class while teaching.

However, many teachers were doing things differently. In the majority of these lessons, teachers tried to ensure that most students participated in some way, including by going up to students sitting in the middle or back of the class (30 of the 45 lessons observed). Many teachers tried to contextualise the content for their students by using local examples (27 of 45 lessons), and some interacted with students in local languages (8 of 45 lessons). In 17% of the snapshots where teachers were observed engaging with students in Standard 2, they used some form of TLM (other than textbooks): materials on the walls, workbooks or practice books, occasionally puzzles or games. In almost 15% of the snapshots, teachers were either moving around the class, or sitting on the ground with their students. While these kinds of practices were still not dominant in the teaching methods we observed, they seemed to reflect both a shift in focus and understanding of their role in the classroom as well as the difficulties of implementing some of the NIPUN guidelines given the ground realities that teachers face.

Students

NIPUN guidelines emphasise creating a classroom that has an interactive learning environment, encouraging students to think, express, and collaborate. Teachers are encouraged to create a child-friendly classroom to engage every child in reading, writing, and early math, using contextually relevant activities that progress from simple to complex and play-based pedagogies. A print- and material-rich setting is central to such a classroom. 

As described earlier, these classrooms did seem to be friendly. Students were mostly treated with kindness and were not scared of their teachers – in fact sometimes the very opposite was observed.

However, this rarely translated into differences in the kinds of learning activities that most students were engaged in. Teachers do engage students for most of the time, but as

mentioned earlier their methods are often more traditional than aligned with the NIPUN Guidelines. There were only four snapshots where most students were doing a play-based learning activity; in 55 snapshots students were engaged in choral repetition either led by the teacher or another student.⁴ In about a quarter of these snapshots (64), students were doing a writing activity – either copying or taking dictation (independent writing was not recorded in any of the snapshots). Small-group activities were observed in just one classroom. Perhaps most strikingly, despite the influx of TLM into schools across the country, students were observed using any form of TLM other than textbooks and notebooks in just six snapshots.

Way forward

The NEP and NIPUN Bharat Mission have provided a starting point, and the rationale for why FLN is important and how best to ensure that students acquire these skills. These ideas appear to have been communicated clearly and on scale. States have adopted and adapted these policy prescriptions in different ways; but the large-scale rollout of FLN training programmes for teachers is common to all. While some teachers have found these trainings to be useful, others expressed that they did not offer opportunities to discuss challenges. Absent the space to discuss, practice, and then adapt the new methods and materials as needed, teachers are often unable to make full use of the guidelines and materials provided to them. For instance, in most cases even though the focus on TLM was clear to all the teachers we spoke to, those who actually used any form of TLM in the classroom did so in ‘demonstration’ mode – in all but one case it was the teacher using the TLM, not the students. Going forward, creating spaces for practice, discussion, and adaptation may be vital to increasing uptake. Additionally, post-training support systems to teachers are also of vital importance, an element still reported to be missing or ineffective in several of the states visited. Lastly and most crucially, decisions on what and how to teach are still based primarily on syllabus completion. Resolving the inherent contradiction between ensuring universal FLN and syllabus completion is a question that the system has yet to reckon with in a systematic way.

There is little doubt that some things have changed for the better since the rollout of NIPUN Bharat and its adaptations across the country. Whether or not the specific recommendations of NIPUN are in place on the ground, the clear focus on FLN goals, and the resultant visibility of FLN in schools and among teachers, is in itself a big step forward. This is reflected in the fact that for the first time in 20 years of ASER, learning levels in the foundational stage have improved substantially.

A version of this piece first appeared in the ASER 2024 Report.

Notes:

1. For the sake of convenience, we use the term ‘classroom’ to denote a set of students taught by a single teacher during the observation, even though two of these 24 ‘classrooms’ were actually outside (one in a verandah, one outdoors).
2. In this context, ‘time on task’ refers to the proportion of time that a teacher is engaged in active instruction during a lesson. Students’ ‘time on task’ is the proportion of time that students engage with learning activities during a lesson.
3. After filling some general information about the classroom, observers recorded a ‘snapshot’ of the classroom – what the teacher was doing, what most students in Standard 2 were doing, and what materials were being used in that specific moment. Repeat snapshots were recorded every eight minutes for the entire duration of the lesson.
4. These were not mutually exclusive options since students could have been doing multiple activities at the same time, for example simultaneously listening to the teacher and writing in their notebooks.