By KN Kumar
Meghalaya’s education system is clearly under some stress, as officially confirmed by its dismal PGI (Performance Grading Index) score of just 420 out of 1000 for 2023–24. The state trails far behind top-performing Punjab and Chandigarh and is positioned at the very bottom of the national rankings. PGI assesses school education across multiple dimensions—(i) learning outcomes and quality, (ii) infrastructure and facilities, (iii) equity, (iv) access, (v) governance processes, and (vi) Teacher education and Training. The Minister, Education has reacted and countered the PGI ranking of Meghalaya by citing (1) data lags, (2) structural complexities, and (3) technical mismatches. While these may provide partial explanations, they do not justify the persistent underperformance. Meghalaya’s chronic low ranking necessitates a clear-eyed account and urgent action. Let us analyse:
(1) The Minister asserts that PGI relies heavily on data sources like UDISE, which often have a one to two-year delay. He claims that improvements made in 2024 – new classrooms, electrification, or enhanced facilities – are not reflected in the 2023–24 PGI. This might seem technically correct on one level, but this position is equally applicable to all the states that face similar delays. But some of them still perform admirably. Meghalaya’s persistent bottom-tier status across multiple PGI cycles indicates an entrenched crisis, not just a transient lag. Indeed, high dropout rates—approaching 10% in lower primary and soaring above 20% in secondary—and hundreds of under-enrolled schools (some with fewer than 10 students) point to a chronic problem. These trends have persisted over successive years, through changing governments. Further, the Minister has not offered any official data indicating wide-scale improvements in 2024, which weakens his assertion. Without up-to-date metrics from the state, the PGI remains the most reliable indicator for the citizens.
(2) Structural Complexity: This one surely is a red Herring. Meghalaya maintains a fragmented education system: government schools, grant-in-aid institutions, SSA-managed schools, deficit-assisted schools, and private schools – all co-existing under overlapping infrastructure. The Minister, therefore, argues that such categorization results in mis-attribution of facilities. This complexity can lead to some anomalies in scoring. Yet it is not a new issue – it’s been the case for years. Fragmentation may justify procedural delays, but it does not explain the staggering learning deficits or rampant absenteeism. These are distinctly human failings – not by-products of data categorization.
(3) To be fair, the Minister does admit that many schools lack basic amenities—functional toilets, drinking water, electricity, and libraries. These are undeniable constraints. According to UDISE: (1) Only about 53% of schools have access to drinking water; (2) Approximately 88% have toilets, some of which are still not fully functional; (3) Electricity coverage hovers around 36-38%; (4) Barely 24% of schools house libraries. These deficiencies—classrooms without electricity, water-starved schools, inadequate sanitation – all create debilitating barriers to learning. A student cannot focus in the dark, nor can he remain in a school without proper toilets and drinking water facilities. Internationally, such infrastructural inadequacies correlate strongly with poor academic outcomes, especially in Meghalaya, and have a direct and measurable impact. These are essential, not optional, foundations of a functional school. Acknowledging infrastructural deficits is insufficient when we juxtapose this with suboptimal fund utilization. Despite dedicating around 16% of its budget to education, Meghalaya has reportedly utilized only 60% of allocated SSA funds in 2022–23. The Minister promises a sweeping “infrastructure transformation,” but offers no specifics. No detailed enumeration of which schools will be electrified, which will receive safe water by when, or how many sanitation facilities will be installed. If there was a blueprint, it would be in the fitness to lay it on the table. But let that pass.
(4) The limited point is that the PGI’s indicators go far beyond infrastructure; PGI judges learning outcomes, equity, access, and governance. On learning, surveys like ASER report that a mere 56% of Class 5 students can read at the Class 2 level. This grim finding reflects a breakdown in teaching quality as much as in facilities. Staff shortages compound the problem: secondary schools carry vacancy rates of up to 30%, and proxy teaching, where locals substitute instead of trained educators, is well-documented, especially in remote regions. Infrastructure investments alone cannot resolve these core issues.
(5) Meghalaya’s hilly terrain, remote hamlets, and dispersed communities do complicate infrastructure delivery. The Minister hints that PGI’s one-size-fits-all methodology fails to account for this. Yet other similarly topographically challenged states, such as Himachal Pradesh (PGI – 860) and Uttarakhand (around 780), and Sikkim have managed far better performance. Their success demonstrates that regional challenges are surmountable; they do not offer excuses. Moreover, PGI’s methodology is transparent and standardized. Meghalaya had the opportunity to contest or contextualize its unique profile, yet no such effort has been documented. Technical anomalies may exist in the margins, but they cannot explain the complete collapse of learning, governance processes, and inclusion indicators.
The data expose a systemic crisis. To emerge from the bottom ranks, Meghalaya needs concerted, accountable, and time-bound reform across several fronts: (i) A complete audit of school infrastructure (ii) filling the teacher vacancies (iii) fund usage, and (iv) NEP-2020 compliance progress should be made public. A white paper would build public trust. (2) Define clear targets—such as “100% electrification by December 2025,” “fully functional sanitation in all schools by June 2026.” Such should be the targets. I expect a leader to speak this language and galvanize his officials. (3) Accelerate recruitment to fill the 30% vacancy in secondary teaching posts. Recruit and train qualified teachers for remote areas, and punish them if they don’t remain in place. (4) Eliminate proxy teaching through accountability and community oversight. (5) Give local bodies and school management committees genuine responsibility in school oversight. Encouraging community participation—parents, NGOs, village durbars – in monitoring attendance, infrastructure upkeep, fund utilization, and classroom quality can be beneficial and transformative. (6) Reduce redundant, under-enrolled schools and merge resources to create viable, well-staffed institutions. Too many sparsely attended schools dilute funding and human resources. Consolidation can save costs and raise educational quality.The state’s educational system stands on shaky footing. The low PGI isn’t an injudicious verdict handed down—it’s a wake-up call. The Minister has acknowledged infrastructural deficiencies. But infrastructure is only the visible tip of an iceberg. The greater challenge lies in teachers, learning quality, and governance. Without addressing those, even the best-built school remains just concrete. It is not the hardware; it is the software. Some of the finest schools of India were the ancient Gurukuls. They had limited infrastructure, but the highest teacher commitment.
The minister’s assertions—about data lags, categorization, and technical quirks—may each hold a splash of truth. But collectively, they form a narrative that distracts rather than engages. Meghalaya’s condition isn’t the result of faulty reporting; it’s the outcome of decades-long poor governance and missed opportunities. By facing the data head-on and committing to real action, the Minister can change the story. I respect the Minister; he is one of our sincere political leaders. This rot predates him. Some unsolicited advice from my side: Stop being kind to the system, be kind to the children. They are our country’s future.