Empowering Education at the Village Level through Decentralisation

Education is often called the great equaliser, but in a country as vast and diverse as India, a single policy drafted in Delhi cannot realistically address the needs of a tribal school in Jharkhand and an urban classroom in Mumbai at the same time. This is where decentralisation steps in. By shifting decision-making power to districts, blocks, panchayats, and even individual schools, India has tried to bring education closer to the people it serves. The journey has been long, uneven, and full of learning, yet the village-level shift remains one of the most significant administrative reforms in post-independence India.

Why decentralisation matters for education 🔗

Education is not a one-size-fits-all service. A primary school in a Santhal village in West Bengal faces very different challenges than one in a Bundelkhand hamlet in Uttar Pradesh. Language, migration patterns, caste dynamics, gender norms, teacher availability, and even the agricultural calendar shape what happens inside a classroom. A top-down administrative structure struggles to respond to these local realities.

Decentralisation tackles this problem by transferring planning, management, and monitoring powers to lower levels of governance. The idea is rooted in the Gandhian vision of Gram Swaraj, where the village is the basic unit of democracy. When local bodies and communities take ownership of schools, decisions become faster, more contextual, and more accountable. Research on decentralisation in India notes that the movement is closely linked to the Panchayati Raj amendments, which sought to give local government institutions greater power over governance in their areas.

The policy foundations of educational decentralisation 🔗

The National Policy on Education, 1986 🔗

The decentralisation of Indian education formally began with the National Policy on Education (NPE) of 1986, introduced under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The policy marked a clear departure from the earlier centralised approach. It called for decentralised planning, greater community participation, and institutional reforms to make schools more responsive to local needs. Scholars reviewing the policy describe it as a landmark event because it not only recommended decentralisation but also provided a concrete action plan to implement it.

The NPE 1986 led to the creation of important institutions that exist to this day, including the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) for decentralised teacher training, the strengthening of State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs), and the establishment of Village Education Committees (VECs). The revised policy of 1992 reinforced these ideas, explicitly tying educational governance to local bodies such as district education boards and panchayats.

The 73rd Constitutional Amendment, 1992 🔗

If the NPE opened the door, the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 built the actual structure. The amendment gave constitutional status to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and created a three-tier system of local self-government – Gram Panchayats at the village level, Panchayat Samitis at the block level, and Zila Parishads at the district level. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj treats this amendment as the foundation of grassroots governance in the country.

Education is listed as one of the 29 subjects in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution, which states are expected to devolve to panchayats. In practice, this means panchayats were empowered to manage, supervise, and support primary and secondary education in their areas. The 74th Amendment extended similar powers to urban local bodies, ensuring that decentralisation reached cities as well.

The District Primary Education Programme, 1994 🔗

Policy alone cannot change classrooms. The next big leap came with the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), launched in 1994. DPEP was a centrally sponsored scheme that treated the district, not the state, as the unit of planning. Evaluations of DPEP show that the programme built real planning capacity at the district level by developing institutional machinery, training local officials, and ensuring resources reached the ground.

Starting in 42 districts across seven states, DPEP eventually covered hundreds of districts. Its defining feature was area-specific planning – each district identified its own barriers, such as girl-child dropouts, tribal enrolment gaps, or teacher absenteeism, and designed strategies to address them. The programme’s experiences strongly influenced later national missions, including the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (2001) and today’s Samagra Shiksha.

School Management Committees: bringing parents into school governance 🔗

The boldest experiment in grassroots educational administration came with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, commonly known as the RTE Act. Enacted under Article 21A of the Constitution, the Act made education a fundamental right for every child between 6 and 14 years of age and, crucially, mandated the formation of School Management Committees (SMCs) in all government and government-aided schools.

Who sits on an SMC? 🔗

An SMC is designed to be democratic and representative. According to the Ministry of Education, Sections 21 and 22 of the RTE Act lay out the structure and responsibilities of these committees. At least 75 percent of SMC members must be parents or guardians of children enrolled in the school, and 50 percent of the members must be women. Other members include local elected representatives such as a panchayat or ward member, the head teacher, and in many schools a student representative. This composition deliberately tilts power towards the community rather than the administration.

What do SMCs actually do? 🔗

SMCs are not ceremonial bodies. They are expected to prepare a School Development Plan (SDP) that becomes the basis for government grants and planning. They monitor teacher and student attendance, oversee the mid-day meal, track how grants are spent, ensure the school follows RTE norms, and raise awareness about the right to education in the community. Accountability Initiative’s policy work describes the SMC as the basic unit of a decentralised model of school governance, with active parental involvement at its heart.

On paper, this is a quiet revolution. A parent of a first-generation learner now has a formal seat at the table where her child’s school is managed. In practice, the results have been mixed but encouraging. Schools with active SMCs have reported better enrolment, improved attendance, fewer dropouts, cleaner infrastructure, and more accountable teachers.

How civil society makes SMCs work 🔗

Passing a law is easier than changing habits. Many SMC members are first-time participants in any formal governance body. Some cannot read the school’s budget. Others are unsure whether they can question a head teacher. This is where civil society organisations have played a transformative role.

LEADS in Jharkhand 🔗

Life Education and Development Support (LEADS), a Jharkhand-based trust, has worked extensively with SMCs in the state. LEADS partners with the Jharkhand Right to Education Forum and the Jharkhand Primary Education Forum to strengthen SMCs and help them develop credible School Development Plans. The organisation trains SMC members on their roles, the provisions of the RTE Act, and financial literacy so that grants are not lost in paperwork. By focusing on the dignity of parents as decision-makers, LEADS has helped transform passive committees into active governance bodies.

Community mobilisation in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal 🔗

Uttar Pradesh has used the SMC platform through its Samagra Shiksha programme to push enrolment drives such as Vidyalaya Chalen Chalayen Abhiyan, along with cascade training for SMC members in every district. State-level community mobilisation efforts use a module called Sajhedari to build the capacity of parents and local stakeholders. West Bengal, meanwhile, has emerged as a noted example in research literature for the quality of its School Development Plans. Studies of SMC performance single out West Bengal as a model where detailed plans have translated into measurable improvements in school functioning.

The persistent challenges 🔗

Decentralisation is not a magic wand. Several problems continue to slow down its promise.

Capacity and awareness gaps 🔗

Many SMC members, especially in marginalised communities, are unaware of the powers the RTE Act gives them. Training programmes are often rushed, poorly designed, or reduced to tick-box exercises. Without genuine understanding of the School Development Plan, budget norms, and grievance procedures, committees cannot hold the system accountable.

Power imbalances 🔗

Some head teachers prefer members who will not question their authority. Researchers have documented cases where less educated parents are deliberately inducted so that the school administration retains de facto control. This hollows out the spirit of decentralisation even when the letter of the law is followed.

Uneven devolution by states 🔗

The 73rd Amendment requires states to devolve functions, functionaries, and finances – the famous three Fs – to panchayats. In reality, this devolution remains patchy, with panchayats often subservient to state bureaucracy. When panchayats lack real power, their ability to support local schools is weakened.

Delays and bureaucratic bottlenecks 🔗

Even when SMCs are supposed to sanction civil works or grants, final approvals often rest with district officials. This creates delays that frustrate parents and discourage participation. The principle of subsidiarity – decisions should be taken at the lowest competent level – is still more aspiration than reality.

The road ahead 🔗

The decentralisation of education in India has travelled a remarkable distance in four decades. From the policy vision of NPE 1986 to the constitutional backbone of the 73rd Amendment, from the district focus of DPEP to the community ownership codified in the RTE Act, every step has brought schools closer to the villages they serve. The next phase depends on deepening rather than widening this architecture – investing in sustained training, genuine financial devolution, real-time data tools, and a culture where the voice of a parent in a village SMC carries the same weight as a directive from a state secretariat.

The experiences of LEADS in Jharkhand, Sajhedari in Uttar Pradesh, and the planning culture of West Bengal suggest that when communities are trusted and supported, they deliver. Schools become cleaner, teachers become more punctual, children stay in class longer, and parents begin to see education as something they shape rather than simply receive.

What do you think? If you were a member of your village SMC tomorrow, what is the first change you would push for in your local school? And do you think decentralisation alone can fix the learning crisis, or does India need a stronger role for the state alongside grassroots governance?

References

1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220388.2023.2273800
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226413150_DECENTRALIZATION_OF_EDUCATIONAL_GOVERNANCE_IN_INDIA_TRENDS_AND_ISSUES
3. https://panchayat.gov.in/en/document/73rd-constitutional-amendment-act-1992/
4. https://teachers.institute/dimensions-of-educational-management/73rd-74th-constitutional-amendments-local-bodies-education/
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0738059396000582
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_Children_to_Free_and_Compulsory_Education_Act,_2009
7. https://www.education.gov.in/en/rte_smc
8. https://accountabilityindia.in/publication/school-management-committees/
9. https://leadsindiajh.org/
10. https://jepc.jharkhand.gov.in/program/community-mobilization
11. https://www.academia.edu/98409228/FUNCTIONS_ROLES_AND_PERFORMANCE_OF_SMCs_IN_SCHOOL_EDUCATION_ACROSS_INDIA
12. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/30-years-after-the-73rd-constitutional-amendment-panchayati-raj-institutions-still-leave-a-lot-to-be-desired-hp-a-case-study