The current decade marks India’s first sustained push towards foundational learning, following the launch of the NIPUN Bharat Mission in 2020 under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The mission aims to ensure that every child attains Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (FLN) by Grade 3 by 2026–27. However, five years on, findings from the Teaching Learning Practices Survey (TLPS) 2025 suggest that India’s foundational learning ecosystem still requires significant strengthening and sustained handholding.
Released on December 22 in New Delhi by the Language and Learning Foundation (LLF), the TLPS 2025 flags serious concerns in classroom practices despite 83% of teachers reporting participation in in-person FLN training over the past year. Conducted over five months between November 2024 and March 2025, the survey covered 1,050 Grade 1 and 2 classrooms across 21 districts in nine states. It found limited use of children’s real-life experiences, home languages, and open-ended questioning—despite NEP 2020’s strong emphasis on mother tongue–based instruction in early grades.
Releasing the report, Sanjay Kumar, Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, highlighted the persistent structural challenge of multigrade, single-teacher schools. Nearly half of India’s 1.5 million schools are primary schools, many operating under multigrade conditions. “How to come out of this is a challenge for all of us,” he said. Drawing on neuroscience, Kumar underlined that while the brain is naturally wired for speech, reading and writing require formal instruction, making early education—particularly in the 0–8 age group—critical. Missing this foundational window, he cautioned, has long-term consequences for lifelong learning. He also referred to assessment data showing a steady decline in learning outcomes from Classes 3 to 6, with a sharper drop by Class 9, calling for a cultural shift from passive listening to active engagement and curiosity-driven learning. Kumar suggested that teacher training modules be redesigned based on gaps identified by the TLPS.
Echoing this concern, Shubhra Chatterji, Director, Vikramshila Education Resource Society, said India continues to remain in denial about the reality of multigrade classrooms. “Why do we do this to our teachers?” she asked, arguing for adaptations in pedagogy, strategic use of teaching-learning materials (TLMs), and changes in assessment practices as long as multigrade contexts persist. Teachers, she stressed, cannot be expected to shoulder systemic burdens without adequate support and structural reform.
The survey findings reinforce this gap between policy intent and classroom reality. While surface-level changes are visible, the instructional core remains weak. Conceptual clarity and depth of understanding are largely missing. Rote learning sustains children only to a point; beyond that, learning demands both breadth and depth. Although low-cost TLMs and pedagogical tools are available, a robust evidence base—particularly for mathematics—remains absent. This, speakers agreed, is not a failure of intent, but of content.
Dr Shailaja Menon, Consultant, Education Portfolio at Tata Trusts, noted she was not surprised that early education has long been underestimated by policymakers and systems alike. Teaching FLN to teachers themselves remains a challenge, she said, as the problem is deeply systemic and cultural, not merely technical. Addressing it requires strong pedagogical knowledge, skilled instruction, and serious engagement with children’s home languages—especially in contexts where access to quality children’s literature is limited. “There are no quick fixes,” she said, emphasising the need for resilience, optimism, and a learning-oriented ecosystem.
Classroom-level data from TLPS 2025 paints a stark picture. In 73% of classrooms, children sat in rigid rows and columns throughout the lesson, with little peer interaction. In two-thirds of classrooms, children remained mostly silent, with few opportunities to speak or learn from one another. Although 73% of teachers were aware of children’s home languages, only 10% used them consistently to support comprehension and participation. Lesson monitoring was weak, with most teachers relying on whole-class questioning that elicited choral responses. Only 30% used differentiated strategies to support varied learning levels.
Language and mathematics practices were similarly constrained. While 52% of teachers provided time for independent reading, only 18% offered guidance during this period. Writing tasks largely involved copying from the blackboard or textbooks. In mathematics, just 28% of teachers used TLMs effectively for demonstrations, and in over half the classrooms, children did not use TLMs at all. Real-life contextualisation of mathematical concepts was rare. Overall, children remained off-task for 27% of classroom time, and when engaged, most activities were mechanical and repetitive.
LLF, with support from Tata Trusts and partners including Centre for MicroFinance, Educational Initiatives, Madhi Foundation, QUEST, and Vikramshila Education Resource Society, hopes this data-driven evidence will help systems move beyond compliance to focus on strengthening classroom practice, designing responsive teacher support systems, and translating policy intent into sustained improvements in learning outcomes.
