National Education Policy 2020 Implementation Challenges

Himangshu Ranjan Bhuyan 

(hrbhuyancolumnist@gmail.com)

The National Education Policy 2020, launched with much anticipation and optimism, promised to redefine India’s educational landscape for the 21st century. It aimed to address long-standing systemic gaps, bring in global best practices, and nurture a generation that is both rooted in Indian values and equipped for global citizenship. The policy’s vision spans from foundational literacy and numeracy to higher education reforms, from equitable and inclusive education to the integration of technology, and from vocational training to multidisciplinary research. Yet, as the initial excitement has given way to the sobering task of implementation, a range of complex challenges has come to the fore. Turning this ambitious blueprint into a functional reality has proven to be a formidable task, tangled in infrastructural deficiencies, administrative inertia, financial constraints, digital divides, socio-cultural barriers, and governance complexities.

A major pillar of NEP 2020 is its restructuring of school education into the 5+3+3+4 format, bringing early childhood care and education into the formal schooling framework. The intention is to lay a robust foundation for cognitive development during the formative years through play-based and discovery-based learning. However, implementing this vision has been hindered by the lack of readiness in both infrastructure and human resources. A significant portion of Anganwadi centres across the country still function with minimal facilities, inadequate teaching-learning material, and under-trained personnel. While the policy emphasises the professional development of teachers involved in early childhood education, the training provided so far is largely insufficient and often reduced to short-term workshops that fail to bring about meaningful pedagogical change. The rural-urban gap further exacerbates this challenge, with children in underserved regions continuing to face learning environments that are far from the envisioned standards.

The policy’s emphasis on multilingualism and the promotion of mother tongue or regional languages as the medium of instruction till at least Grade 5 has also run into operational difficulties. While this recommendation aims at cognitive advantage and cultural rootedness, it poses practical challenges in states with complex linguistic diversity, in schools with students from multiple language backgrounds, and in urban centres where the preference of parents leans heavily toward English-medium education. Moreover, the shortage of adequately trained teachers proficient in various regional languages has hampered the rollout of this reform. In several cases, schools have had to rely on temporary or underqualified instructors, leading to compromised learning outcomes. The lack of clarity and consensus on the three-language formula has caused further confusion among educational institutions, teachers, and parents alike.

One of the most ambitious promises of NEP 2020 is the shift from rote learning to experiential, competency-based education, aimed at fostering critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills. Yet, changing the curriculum alone is insufficient without a corresponding transformation in teaching methodologies and classroom practices. The deep-rooted culture of rote memorisation persists in many parts of the country, particularly where examination performance remains the primary metric for student and institutional success. Teachers, many of whom have themselves been products of the rote system, struggle to adapt to the demands of a more interactive and learner-centric pedagogy without continuous, hands-on training and support. The lack of adequate teaching aids, digital tools, and well-designed resource materials further limits the scope of effective implementation of these curricular reforms.

Assessment reform, a cornerstone of NEP 2020, seeks to shift the focus from high-stakes examinations to formative, competency-based evaluations that track the development of skills and understanding over time. However, this vision faces significant hurdles at the ground level. The existing infrastructure for designing and implementing such assessments is grossly inadequate. Teachers, already burdened with large class sizes and administrative duties, are often ill-equipped to design meaningful formative assessments or to provide the kind of individualised feedback that the policy envisages. The creation of the National Assessment Centre and efforts to revamp examination boards are steps in the right direction, but much remains to be done in terms of capacity building and resource allocation to realise the intended transformation in evaluation practices.

In the domain of higher education, NEP 2020 proposes radical changes, including the establishment of large multidisciplinary institutions, flexible degree programs with multiple exit options, an academic credit bank, and a sharp focus on research and innovation. While some universities have taken preliminary steps toward implementing these reforms, the larger picture remains one of inertia and confusion. The lack of clarity on operational guidelines, absence of financial and infrastructural support, and apprehension among faculty members about increased workload and altered academic structures have slowed down the reform process.

Moreover, the fear that the push for multidisciplinary education may dilute subject depth or compromise academic rigour continues to spark debate within the academic community. The financial dimension of NEP 2020 implementation presents perhaps the most significant and persistent challenge. The policy envisions a substantial increase in public investment in education, targeting an expenditure of 6% of GDP. However, in reality, education spending has hovered around 3.5-4% of GDP, with no concrete roadmap for bridging this gap. Many of the transformative measures proposed in the policy—be it the upgrading of school infrastructure, teacher training, digital inclusion, or the establishment of new higher education institutions—require sustained and substantial funding. Yet, budget allocations have not kept pace with these requirements, leaving states and institutions scrambling for resources. In financially weaker states, this funding gap has been even more pronounced, leading to stark disparities in the pace and quality of implementation across the country.

Digital transformation, another key pillar of the NEP, has been accelerated by the pandemic-driven shift to online and blended modes of learning. The policy’s call for technology-enabled learning platforms, such as DIKSHA and SWAYAM, and the promotion of digital literacy among teachers and students reflect a forward-looking vision. However, the deep digital divide that exists across regions, socio-economic groups, and genders poses a serious threat to the equitable implementation of this vision. In many rural areas, reliable internet connectivity remains elusive, electricity supply is erratic, and device ownership is limited. Even where digital access exists, the lack of adequate training and support for teachers to effectively integrate technology into their teaching has limited the impact of these platforms. As a result, technology, which was supposed to bridge learning gaps, has in some cases exacerbated existing inequalities.

Vocational education and skills development, which the NEP rightly seeks to integrate into mainstream education from the school level onwards, face challenges of relevance, quality, and perception. The shortage of qualified vocational trainers, outdated curricula in many trades, and weak industry linkages have limited the effectiveness of vocational programs. Despite the policy’s emphasis on breaking down the academic-vocational divide, societal attitudes that view vocational education as inferior to traditional academic pathways continue to undermine its uptake and success. Without a concerted effort to modernise vocational training infrastructure, strengthen industry partnerships, and create clear progression pathways for students, the goal of preparing students for gainful employment in a rapidly changing economy will remain elusive.

Equity and inclusion, themes that run through the entire policy, also face significant challenges at the stage of implementation. While the NEP commits to addressing barriers faced by socio-economically disadvantaged groups, girls, differently-abled students, and children from remote areas, translating these commitments into effective action requires far more than policy declarations. Issues such as lack of transport facilities, inadequate sanitation in schools, absence of gender-sensitive infrastructure, and persistent social biases continue to drive dropouts and limit access for vulnerable groups. Financial support schemes, while helpful, have not been comprehensive or consistent enough to make a substantial dent in these deep-rooted inequities. The danger is that the benefits of NEP 2020 may disproportionately accrue to students in better-off regions and communities, thereby widening rather than narrowing the educational divide.

Governance and coordination form another significant bottleneck in the NEP’s implementation journey. Education being a subject in the Concurrent List requires close collaboration between the Centre and the states. However, states have shown varying degrees of enthusiasm and preparedness for adopting NEP reforms. Political differences, administrative capacity constraints, and regional priorities have led to a fragmented and uneven approach to implementation. The absence of a robust monitoring and accountability framework has further complicated the situation. Many of the new regulatory bodies proposed by the policy, such as the Higher Education Commission of India and the National Educational Technology Forum, have been slow to take shape or have faced resistance. Without effective coordination mechanisms and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, the implementation of NEP 2020 risks becoming a patchwork of isolated initiatives rather than a cohesive national movement.

Underlying all these challenges is the critical issue of teacher preparedness and empowerment. Teachers are the key agents who can bring the vision of NEP 2020 to life. Yet, they remain among the most under-supported stakeholders in the reform process. While the policy rightly emphasises continuous professional development, merit-based career progression, and improved working conditions, these objectives have largely remained on paper. Many teachers, particularly in government schools, continue to grapple with inadequate training opportunities, lack of access to updated teaching-learning resources, excessive non-teaching duties, and uncertain service conditions. Without substantial investment in building teacher capacity, providing sustained mentoring support, and creating an enabling environment for teachers to innovate and excel, the ambitious reforms envisaged by the NEP are unlikely to translate into meaningful learning outcomes on the ground.

In sum, the National Education Policy 2020 represents a visionary and comprehensive blueprint for educational transformation in India. Its strength lies in its holistic and inclusive approach, its emphasis on foundational learning, its focus on flexibility and multidisciplinary education, and its commitment to equity and excellence. However, vision alone is not enough. The gap between policy and practice remains wide, bridged only by sustained political will, adequate financial investment, robust institutional capacity, and collective ownership by all stakeholders—governments, educators, communities, and learners. As India moves ahead, the success of NEP 2020 will depend not merely on the ambition of its goals but on the rigour, inclusiveness, and integrity with which it is implemented. Only then can it truly fulfil its promise of preparing India’s children and youth for the challenges and opportunities of a rapidly evolving world.