Nagaland's learning crisis is not simply a failure of children to learn but it is a test of whether the education system itself is willing to learn.
Education systems are generally comfortable measuring children's learning. They conduct assessments, publish performance reports, identify low-performing districts and prescribe remedial interventions. But they are often less comfortable asking a more uncomfortable question: what do these learning outcomes reveal about the institutions responsible for creating opportunities to learn?
The findings of the PARAKH RashtriyaSarvekshan (PRS) 2024 should compel Nagaland to confront precisely this question.
Conducted by PARAKH under NCERT on December 4, 2024, the assessment covered 22,220 students across Grades 3, 6 and 9 in Nagaland. The mathematics results are particularly concerning. Students scored an average of 57% in Grade 3, 38% in Grade 6 and 30% in Grade 9, compared with national averages of 60%, 46% and 37%, respectively. The widening gap across successive grades raises questions about whether schools are successfully building foundational understanding and progressively strengthening children's ability to apply mathematical concepts.
These are not simply examination results. They point towards a possible disconnect between curriculum expectations, classroom practices and the academic support children receive as they progress through school. While the assessment does not track the same children over time or establish why these gaps exist, it provides compelling evidence that learning difficulties persist across schooling stages.
The first institutional question, therefore, is whether the education system understands the nature of these learning difficulties or simply responds to their consequences. A child struggling with mathematics may lack conceptual understanding, opportunities to practise, confidence to ask questions or the ability to connect abstract concepts with everyday experiences. Prescribing additional classes or distributing learning materials without diagnosing these difficulties risks treating symptoms rather than addressing their causes.
The second concern is the relationship between language, culture and learning. Nagaland's linguistic diversity is one of its greatest cultural strengths. Children grow up speaking different indigenous languages, while English occupies an important place in formal schooling and assessment. PARAKH's assessment in Nagaland was administered in English.
This does not establish that language explains poor mathematics performance. However, it raises an important question: are children adequately supported in navigating the relationship between their home languages, classroom communication and the academic language of mathematics and science? Contextualisation must go beyond translating textbooks or incorporating local illustrations. It requires recognising children's existing knowledge, languages and cultural experiences as resources for understanding new concepts.
The third concern is the effectiveness of teacher-support institutions. Nagaland has SCERT, DIETs and other academic structures intended to strengthen teaching and learning. Yet persistent learning gaps raise questions about whether these institutions are adequately supporting changes in classroom practice. If children continue to struggle with foundational concepts, it becomes important to examine how teachers diagnose learning difficulties, adapt instruction and receive ongoing academic support.
Teacher development cannot be measured simply through workshops conducted or participants trained. What matters is whether teachers receive sustained mentoring, classroom feedback and opportunities for professional reflection. SCERT and DIETs must increasingly function as institutions of continuous professional learning rather than primarily as centres for training and administrative compliance.
District disparities make this challenge even more significant. The variation in performance across Nagaland's districts suggests that children do not experience equal educational opportunities. Difficult terrain and dispersed settlements explain some delivery challenges, but they do not explain everything. What differences in school leadership, teacher support, institutional capacity and community engagement might account for variations in learning? Understanding these differences is essential for developing district-specific strategies instead of imposing uniform interventions across diverse contexts.
There is also a dimension of learning that conventional academic interventions frequently overlook: the emotional and relational experience of children in classrooms. PARAKH's learning findings cannot establish that emotional factors cause poor academic performance. Nevertheless, they make it important to investigate whether children have the confidence to ask questions, make mistakes and participate without fear of humiliation.
This is where Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) becomes relevant. Confidence, emotional regulation, empathy, collaboration and agency are not additional activities competing with academic learning. They help create the conditions in which meaningful learning can happen. SEL should therefore inform everyday teaching practices and teacher-student relationships rather than become another standalone programme.
Civil society organisations must also examine their contribution. Have years of technical assistance and teacher training strengthened public institutions or created parallel support structures? Are organisations measuring changes in classroom practices or primarily counting activities and beneficiaries? Are teachers and communities genuinely shaping educational interventions?
Nagaland has an opportunity to use PARAKH as the beginning of a state-wide institutional learning agenda: one that strengthens mathematics pedagogy, reimagines teacher development, recognises linguistic diversity and places children's lived experiences at the centre of educational reform.
Education systems routinely ask children to demonstrate that they have learned. Perhaps it is time they held themselves to the same standard.
The most important lesson from PARAKH may not be what Nagaland's children have failed to learn, but what its educational institutions must now be willing to learn about themselves. Nagaland's learning crisis is not simply a failure of children to learn. It is a test of whether the education system itself is willing to learn.
Sharique Mashhadi
(The author works in the social development sector and has contributed to large-scale impact initiatives across India and South Asia. He currently serves as Director – East Hub at Dream a Dream, a Bengaluru-based organisation. The views expressed in this article are personal)