logo
Single-teacher schools are failing India's children. Here's what must change

Single-teacher schools are failing India's children. Here's what must change

India Today15 hours ago
On paper, the Right to Education Act is clear: every primary school must have at least two teachers and one for every 30 students. Yet, travel into the heartlands of India, especially to states like Jharkhand, and you'll find a very different reality. Nearly one in three government primary schools there is run by a single teacher.In some states, that lone teacher is expected to handle 70, even 90 children. And more often than not, these schools are tucked away in remote tribal villages or Dalit hamlets -- places that desperately need education the most.advertisementSometimes, there's no teacher at all.
Economist and activist Jean Dreze, who has long worked on rural education in India, calls this 'a stark symptom of a larger failure to enforce RTE norms.' And the data backs him.According to the UDISE 2021-22 data on single-teacher schools from the education ministry, Jharkhand isn't alone. States like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Karnataka also report worryingly high numbers of single-teacher schools. But in Jharkhand, the problem runs deeper -- and longer.ALARMING NUMBERS IN JHARKHAND AND OTHER STATESJharkhand hasn't hired new teachers since 2016. In the years since, many have retired or passed away, creating a gaping hole in the teaching force.'Even at that time, there were massive teacher shortages,' Dreze points out. 'Meanwhile, many teachers have retired or died, intensifying the shortage.'Dreze has even co-filed a PIL in the Jharkhand High Court in 2023 demanding appointments of 26,000 teachers. He says the state's crisis is rooted in years of neglect.
(Representative image)
According to 2021-22 UDISE data, Jharkhand has the highest proportion of single-teacher schools among all major Indian states -- 30.9% of its government primary schools. Even worse, these schools serve an average of 46 students each, far above what any one teacher can manage.For comparison, Andhra Pradesh (33.9%), Telangana (30.3%), Karnataka (29%), Rajasthan (27.2%) and Himachal Pradesh (28.2%) also report high proportions of single-teacher schools.In Bihar, only 9.7% of schools are single-teacher, but they serve a staggering 96 students on average. Uttar Pradesh, despite its size, has only 2.5% single-teacher schools -- but each of these has around 70 pupils.At the other end of the spectrum, Kerala stands out, with just 4% single-teacher schools and only 10 pupils per school.And this is where we need to differentiate between the issue of single-teacher schools and that of mini schools.'MINI-SCHOOLS' AREN'T THE PROBLEM -- BAD POLICY ISadvertisementSome officials casually label all single-teacher schools as 'mini-schools.' Before the Right to Education (RTE) Act came in, mini-schools were a quick-fix way to reach remote habitations where enrolment would be very low anyway.But once the RTE norms kicked in -- demanding minimum infrastructure and at least two teachers per school -- the system was supposed to upgrade. It didn't.Dr Jean Dreze explains it simply: 'Mini-schools are easy to identify. There are some in most states, but not many. But the problem of single-teacher schools is much larger, certainly in Jharkhand.'While Kerala or Himachal might post one teacher to handle 10-15 kids in a remote hill or forest village, Jharkhand averages 46 students per single-teacher school. In Bihar, it's 96. These aren't "mini" -- they're overcrowded, neglected, and barely functional.So when some policymakers try to lump all single-teacher setups under the 'mini-school' banner to justify the lack of staffing, it's dangerous. It's just bad policy.
(AI-generated image)
advertisementTHE CASTE QUESTIONThe problem isn't limited to teacher shortages. It's also about where teachers are posted. It's no coincidence that the worst-hit areas are largely inhabited by Dalits and Adivasis.Urban and easily accessible villages tend to receive more teachers. Remote Adivasi and Dalit villages -- where parents are often first-generation learners -- are left with barely one, or sometimes none.'Discrimination is very much part of the problem,' says Derze. Teachers are often reluctant to take up posts in these communities.'Teacher placement discriminates against remote villages inhabited by marginalised communities,' Dreze says. 'Children who needed the best schooling facilities, because their communities have been excluded from education for centuries, end up getting the worst.'The government, too, appears to have deprioritised these schools when it comes to allocation and oversight.WHEN A SCHOOL IS JUST A MEAL CENTREThis single-teacher school crisis in Jharkhand was laid bare at a public hearing held in June 2025 in Manika block of Latehar district, based on a survey of 40 single-teacher schools in the area. Villagers gathered to share what daily schooling actually looks like.'Once food is served, the school closes,' said Salmani Devi from Ambatikar village. 'When we ask officials about this, they say -- 'What will village children study?''advertisementJamuna village's Chinta Devi described how their school technically has two teachers, but one is always absent and the other is too busy with paperwork.For Kavita Devi from Karmahi village, it's not just a learning issue -- it's a matter of her children's future. 'I don't want them to become daily wage workers like me,' she said.Mayawati Devi, also from Karmahi, added that when they confront teachers about the poor quality of education, the teachers simply blame the government.Geeta Devi from Chatra village pointed out how the system seems more invested in feeding children than educating them. 'Everyone asks what food was served in school, but no one asks what was taught,' she said.
From the public hearing on single-teacher schools in Jharkhand in June 2025
And when it comes to basic schemes? Phuliya Devi noted that 'Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao' isn't implemented in her village at all.Even corruption plays a role. Kunti Devi, a School Management Committee member, said that the headmaster demanded Rs 150 from each student for school uniforms. 'Because I couldn't pay, my child didn't get one,' she said.advertisementWhen the matter was raised with Block Education Officer Rajshree Puri, she responded by suggesting that anyone in the village who has passed Class 12 can teach voluntarily -- even without pay.This, Dreze says, is part of a larger policy. 'Jharkhand has a policy of allowing volunteers with education above Class 12 to take classes in government schools on an honorary basis,' he acknowledges.But he warns that such ad-hoc arrangements can be dangerous, especially if they are used as a substitute for actual teachers.Dreze warns that such stop-gap measures are not only ineffective but dangerous. 'The danger is that such classes will substitute for teacher time, or act as an entry point for cranks and crooks,' he says. 'But these classes rarely happen in any case.'Here's the data on single-teacher schools as per the UDISE 2021-22 report:StateProportion of schools with a single teacher (%)Proportion of children enrolled in single-teacher schools (%)Average number of pupils in single-teacher schoolsJharkhand30.924.946Karnataka29.021.223Rajasthan27.218.930Himachal Pradesh28.218.619Madhya Pradesh21.317.339Andhra Pradesh33.915.524Jammu & Kashmir19.013.915Uttarakhand27.911.915Telangana30.310.721Chhattisgarh15.38.734Punjab18.27.132Bihar9.77.196All major States14.76.933Odisha8.66.637Gujarat7.24.634Assam8.74.333Maharashtra11.74.220Tamil Nadu8.34.132Haryana7.22.848West Bengal5.21.829Uttar Pradesh2.51.570Kerala4.00.310WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?The RTE norms are over a decade old. Why haven't they been enforced?According to Dreze, the buck stops with both political leadership and the education bureaucracy. 'The irresponsibility of the bureaucrats and functionaries is also staggering,' he says. 'They care mostly about finance and records, without much concern for children.'The silence from the political class is equally deafening. 'In Jharkhand, the schooling system is a disaster but one rarely hears about this in parliamentary debates, media reports, public discussions or electoral campaigns,' he says.Even the courts -- though recently helpful -- can only do so much. A PIL filed by Dreze and others led the Jharkhand High Court to order the appointment of 26,000 new teachers.But as Dreze says, "Judicial activism is certainly not enough. This failure is first and foremost a political failure.'Filling the 26,000 teacher vacancies in Jharkhand are just the beginning. According to petitioners in the Jharkhand High Court case, the state needs over 60,000 more primary school teachers to meet RTE norms.'
(Representative image)
CAN THE PEOPLE TURN THIS AROUND?Interestingly, while the government looks away, parents haven't stopped caring. At the public hearing in Jharkhand's Latehar, many took a day off from mahua collection -- a crucial seasonal income source -- to attend.It may not seem like much, but it shows that the demand for education is there, especially from parents. It just hasn't found political voice yet.Dreze believes a 'second wave' of the education rights movement is needed. 'Most Indian parents care a lot about their children's education, but collective action on this is rare,' he says. "One reason is that the influential classes have deserted government schools in favour of private schools. The rest feel that there is little they can do.'But this frustration can be harnessed. 'Their strong desire for quality education can probably be turned into a positive energy for public mobilisation,' he adds.And the RTE Act, despite being ignored today, 'includes many useful provisions that are worth fighting for.'THE WAY FORWARDSo what needs to be done? First, appoint teachers -- and appoint them where they're needed. Ensure that no school is left with just one teacher, especially if it's serving a large number of children.Build mechanisms that hold the bureaucracy accountable. And above all, bring the issue back into public conversation.Because at the end of the day, no child should grow up believing that school is just a place to eat rice and leave. They deserve classrooms that function, teachers who show up, and a system that believes they matter. Otherwise, it's not just a schooling failure. It's a national one.- EndsMust Watch
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case
Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed gangster Abu Salem to approach the Supreme Court for clarification on whether he is entitled to remission while serving a life sentence in two Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) cases, including the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings. Mumbai : Underworld don Abu Salem walks out of the Sessions Court after a hearing in Mumbai on Wednesday. PTI Photo by Mitesh Bhuvad (PTI1_18_2012_000148A) (PTI) {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} A division bench of Justice Ajey Gadkari and Justice Rajesh Patil was hearing Salem's plea seeking early release on the grounds that he would complete 25 years of imprisonment by March 31, 2025. Salem argued that his release was mandated under the terms of his 2005 extradition from Portugal, in which the Indian government had given a solemn assurance to Portuguese authorities that he would not be sentenced to death or imprisoned for more than 25 years. {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} The confusion stems from the fact that Salem was arrested in one case on October 11, 2005, and in another on October 24, 2005. He was later convicted in both cases on February 25, 2015, and September 7, 2017, respectively. In July 2024, he had moved a special TADA court seeking a tentative date of release, but the court declined to consider remission, citing the grave nature of the offences. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} Read More {{^usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Salem's counsel, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, insisted that both sentences were running concurrently and, taking into account his pre-trial custody, time served, and jail-earned remission, Salem had effectively completed 25 years on March 31, 2025. 'They are not considering my jail-earned remission,' Malhotra told the court. Remission can be granted on various grounds, including good behaviour and completion of a portion of the sentence. However, the high court pointed out that the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling made no mention of remission. 'Do you want us to say something that the Supreme Court has not said?' the bench asked. 'This clarification needs to come from the Supreme Court,' it added. The bench admitted Salem's petition but declined interim relief, stating that it would be heard in due course. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON

Trump Tariffs: India's pharma, auto, textile sector to be in focus; here's why
Trump Tariffs: India's pharma, auto, textile sector to be in focus; here's why

Mint

timean hour ago

  • Mint

Trump Tariffs: India's pharma, auto, textile sector to be in focus; here's why

US President Donald Trump's tariffs are set to take effect on Friday, August 1. Therefore, the 90-day grace period for reciprocal tariffs that was initially scheduled to end this Wednesday, July 9, has been extended due to stalled negotiations. On Monday, July 7, US President Donald Trump disclosed letters his administration sent to different trading partners notifying them of the reciprocal tariff rates that will be in effect starting August 1, 2025. The first two letters shared by Trump on the social media platform Truth Social indicated that the US will apply a 25% tariff on Japan and South Korea. After a brief pause, the US President also released tariff letters for additional countries including Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, South Africa, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Tunisia, Malaysia, Serbia, Cambodia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. On Monday, Trump announced proposals for a 40% tariff on products imported from Myanmar and Laos, a 36% tariff on goods from Thailand and Cambodia, a 35% tariff on items from Serbia and Bangladesh, a 32% tariff on imports from Indonesia, a 30% tariff on products from South Africa, and a 25% tariff on goods from Malaysia and Tunisia. On Sunday, July 6, Trump announced that he might send out as many as 15 initial letters, warning that US import taxes would return to the higher rates implemented in April if countries fail to reach agreements. On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that the United States is nearing a trade agreement with India. Amidst this backdrop, experts highlight the potential impact that different sectors may experience in India as a result tariffs. Mohit Gulati, the CIO and managing partner of ITI Growth Opportunities Fund, said that, in sectors where India enjoys a near-monopoly or dominant market share—such as certain generics in pharmaceuticals and specialized textiles—India will be in a strong position to dictate terms to US buyers, leveraging its indispensability and global supply chain strength. For these monopolistic exports, the US will have limited alternatives, giving Indian exporters greater pricing and negotiation power. Gulati highlighted that for the broader range of exports, however, the scenario is more nuanced. Key sectors like gems & jewellery, electronics, textiles, and auto components will face both opportunities and challenges as tariffs rise. While some Indian exporters may benefit from rivals like China and Vietnam being hit with even steeper duties, others could see margins squeezed and competitiveness tested. There will be pluses and minuses across the board, with the final impact depending on sectoral dynamics, government support, and the evolving terms of the India-US trade deal. "Ultimately, India's ability to capitalize on its strengths while navigating new tariff barriers will define its export trajectory in the post-tariff pause era,' said Mohit Gulati.

How Rajiv Gandhi's decision to send troops to Sri Lanka cost him his life
How Rajiv Gandhi's decision to send troops to Sri Lanka cost him his life

Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • Indian Express

How Rajiv Gandhi's decision to send troops to Sri Lanka cost him his life

When the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) arrived in Sri Lanka on July 30, 1987, New Delhi did not expect to be embroiled in a bloody conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Indo-Sri Lankan Peace Accord of July 29, 1987 was expected to bring an end to the civil war; Indian troops were meant to simply maintain law and order in the Tamil north. As things turned out, when the IPKF withdrew from Sri Lanka in 1990, it had suffered more than 8,000 casualties, LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran was more powerful than ever, and after breakdown of peace talks, the second phase of the Eelam War raged on, even more brutal than the first. Then on May 21, 1991, Rajiv Gandhi, who as Prime Minister had sent in the IPKF to the Emeral Isle, was assasinated by an LTTE suicide bomber at an election rally in Sriperumbudur, tragically culminating the country's Sri Lanka misadventure that has long been described as 'India's Vietnam'. With the latest Nagesh Kukunoor-directed show The Hunt telling the story of the CBI's investigation into the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, here's a recall of the events and decisions that led to the killing. Seeds of the conflict The origins of civil strife in Sri Lanka lay in the discrimination and persecution of the country's minority Tamils by the Sinhala Buddhist majority which dominated in all spheres of life in the post-colonial state. By the late 1970s, dozens of militant Tamil groups had emerged, demanding autonomy or independence for Sri Lanka's Tamil regions — Tamils form a majority in the Northern Province and have a significant presence in the Eastern Province. Beginning in the late 1970s, the Tamil Nadu government, and later New Delhi, began providing limited support in the form of training, supplies, and finances to Tamil separatists. This was largely borne out of deep sympathies held by India's Tamil population for their Sri Lankan brethren. Founded in 1976, Prabhakaran's LTTE soon emerged as the most dominant Tamil separatist group in Sri Lanka by the early 1980s. It was the LTTE's deadly ambush of a Sri Lankan army patrol in 1983 that led to the 'Black July' riots which sparked the two-and-a-half decade civil war in Sri Lanka. As Samanth Subramanian wrote in his book The Divided Island: Life, Death, and the Sri Lankan War (2014), 'The riots were brought under control, but the violence never truly ceased thereafter.' India's decision to intervene India's (successful) intervention in the Bangladesh Liberation War had created a template for responding to civil strife in nearby countries. When the civil war broke out in 1983, India did not want to intervene directly; it simply wanted to resolve the crisis. While New Delhi held sympathies for Sri Lankan Tamils, it was also wary of the possibility of Tamil secession in Sri Lanka leading to demands of a greater Tamil homeland which could endanger its own sovereignty — as such, India simply wanted to be an impartial mediator. At the time, however, both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government were looking only at a military solution. Things would change in 1987. That January, Sri Lankan forces placed an embargo on the entire Tamil North, cutting off supplies of even food and medicines. Indian relief ships headed to Jaffna were sent back, prompting Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to send in supplies via Air Force transport aircraft accompanied by Mirage-2000 fighters. This show of force brought Sri Lanka President J R Jayewardene to the negotiating table with Rajiv Gandhi. The two inked the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord on July 29, 1987 which kept Lanka whole but forced Colombo to agree to greater provincial autonomy and withdraw troops from Tamil regions. Rebels were to surrender arms and engage in the political process. The IPKF moved into the Tamil regions vacated by the Lankan troops in order to maintain law and order, seting up its headquarters in Palali, near Jaffna. From keeping peace to waging war While technically a part of the agreement, the LTTE never truly came on board, and unlike most other rebel groups, refused to surrender arms. Colombo too was not all that happy. 'There was much dissension within Jayewardene's cabinet… The masses, particularly in the Sinhala regions, vehemently opposed the Accord,' Roshani M Gunewardene wrote in 'Indo-Sri Lanka Accord: Intervention by Invitation or Forced Intervention' (1991). At the end of the day, the underlying political reasons behind the conflict were far from resolved: the 'peace' enforced by the IPKF was tenuous at best, just waiting to come crumbling down. And that's what happened after Sri Lankan forces detained two LTTE commanders in Jaffna early in October. The duo consumed cyanide pills while in joint custody of the IPKF and the Sri Lankan military, triggering retaliation by the rebels: the IPKF was now at war with the LTTE. Initially, New Delhi expected a quick, decisive victory. Army Chief General K Sundarji promised Rajiv Gandhi that it would take '72 hours to seven days' to finish off the Tigers. By mid-October, however, all illusions to this end were shattered. A disastrous heliborne mission to take out the LTTE's top leadership in Jaffna University on October 12 led to the death of 36 Indian troops, the capture of one soldier, injuries to many more, and damage to Indian helicopters. Brigade-level forces and tanks tasked to rescue the soldiers from the compound also suffered heavy losses. Between October 12 and October 13, the IPKF lost at least 70 men, many of whose bodies were never recovered. The next 20-odd days saw brutal combat between the IPKF, tasked with taking Jaffna, and the Tigers. By the end of October, 1,100 rebels were killed, but the IPKF too lost 319 soldiers, and more than a 1,000 Indian troops were wounded. While Jaffna was captured , the LTTE's main fighting force and leadership had escaped to the jungles of Vanni in the north. What followed was two-and-a-half years of bitter fighting against an enemy proficient in guerilla tactics and steadfast in its resolve. Casualties mounted on all sides with no end to the war in sight, even as the IPKF presence in the Emerald Isle became ever more popular in both India and Sri Lanka. By the time the last Indian soldier had left Sri Lankan shores in 1990, after 32 months, some 1,165 Indian soldiers had died and as had more than 5,000 Sri Lankans. The fallout of the debacle The pullout of Indian troops finally began in 1989, after Rajiv Gandhi lost the elections to V P Singh — the Sri Lanka debacle undoubtedly played a part in the electoral result. For India, this episode left deep scars. 'Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan operation ended in disaster and, with the IPKF pulling out without achieving its objectives, it became the most powerful argument against future Indian military involvement overseas,' journalist and former Indian Army officer Sushant Singh wrote in his book Mission Overseas: Daring Operations by the Indian Military (2017). In Sri Lanka, the Indian intervention was extremely unpopular, and the IPKF was accused of extra-judicial abductions, tortuere, rape, and killing. Even among the Sinhala population, the lengthy presence of an 80,000-strong Indian occupation force was detested: Colombo itself began arming the Tigers by 1989, in a bid to hasten IPKF's departure. The V P Singh government that succeeded Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 was short-lived. By 1991, India was once again preparing for a general election — and Rajiv had kept a door open for re-entering the Sri Lankan civil war. In an interview with Sunday magazine in 1990, the former PM said he would send the IPKF to disarm the LTTE if he returned to power. This would be the final straw for Prabhakaran, who held deep seated grievances against the former PM for sending Indian troops to Sri Lanka. The Tigers sent their feared suicide bombers, a 22-year-old by the name Kalaivani Rajaratnam, to take Rajiv Gandhi out. At least 15 other bystanders were killed in the bombing.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store