Explained: Kerala’s shift on PM SHRI and National Education Policy – The Hindu

Report on Kerala’s Participation in PM SHRI Scheme and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction and Policy Reversal

The State of Kerala has reversed its initial decision and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to implement the Centrally sponsored PM Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI) scheme. This marks a significant policy shift, as Kerala, alongside Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, had previously refused participation due to strong opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which the PM SHRI scheme is designed to showcase. This report analyzes the context of this decision, with a specific focus on its relationship with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

2.0 Overview of the PM SHRI Initiative and its Link to SDG 4

2.1 Scheme Objectives

The PM SHRI scheme, launched in 2022, aims to establish 14,500 exemplar institutions to demonstrate the implementation of the NEP 2020. This initiative, with a total outlay of ₹27,360 crore over five years, is a direct national strategy to advance SDG 4 by creating models of high-quality, inclusive, and equitable education. With Kerala’s participation, 34 States and Union Territories are now part of the scheme, leaving only Tamil Nadu and West Bengal as non-signatories.

2.2 State-Level Opposition to NEP 2020

The Kerala government’s initial opposition was rooted in concerns that the NEP 2020 could undermine core principles aligned with SDG 4.7 (Education for sustainable development and global citizenship) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The state expressed apprehension that the policy would lead to:

• Communalisation and commercialisation of education.
• Erosion of secularism, scientific thought, and Constitutional values.
• Centralisation of power in the education sector.

3.0 Financial Imperatives and the Impact on SDG 4 and SDG 10

3.1 Withholding of Central Funds

The primary catalyst for Kerala’s policy reversal was the withholding of substantial funds by the Union Government under the Samagra Shiksha education scheme. The total arrears amounted to ₹1,158.13 crore across the financial years 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26.

3.2 Jeopardizing Inclusive and Equitable Education

The suspension of funds directly threatened the state’s ability to meet its commitments under SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The disruption affected numerous programs essential for providing inclusive and equitable education to vulnerable populations. Key impacts included:

• Direct adverse effects on approximately 40 lakh students in government and aided schools, predominantly from marginalized sections.
• Disruption of benefits for nearly 5.6 lakh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students.
• Interruption of special support, therapies, and assistive devices for 1.8 lakh differently-abled students.
• Impediments to the distribution of free uniforms and textbooks.
• Negative impacts on teacher training, pre-primary education, and allowances for female students.

By signing the MoU, the state anticipates receiving ₹1,476.13 crore in arrears and new funds, thereby restoring these critical educational services.

4.0 State Rationale and Strategy for SDG Alignment

4.1 A Tactical Decision for Educational Continuity

The Government of Kerala has framed its decision as a “tactical move” to ensure the financial stability of its education sector and uphold its commitment to SDG 4. The objective is to secure necessary funding to prevent the collapse of essential educational support systems, particularly during a period of financial strain.

4.2 Balancing National Policy with State-Level SDG Implementation

Despite joining the PM SHRI scheme, the state government maintains its critical stance on the NEP 2020 while outlining a strategy to protect its educational principles. This approach involves:

1. Curriculum Autonomy: The state asserts that its curriculum is determined locally. It will utilize the Kerala Curriculum Framework (KCF) 2023, which it argues was framed incorporating national-level changes while upholding secular, democratic, and scientific values, in line with SDG 4.7.
2. Selective Implementation: The government has stated that any provision of the NEP that contradicts the state’s interests and its vision for education will not be implemented, thereby safeguarding its unique approach to achieving quality education.
3. Continued Advocacy: The Minister for General Education has affirmed that the state will continue its ideological opposition to what it perceives as the communalising agenda of the NEP.

5.0 Inter-Governmental Dynamics and SDG 17

5.1 Challenges in Collaborative Governance

This situation highlights the complexities of achieving SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) within a federal structure. The use of financial leverage by the central government to ensure state compliance with a national policy demonstrates a significant challenge in inter-governmental cooperation for development.

5.2 Internal Coalition Disagreement

The decision has also created internal political friction, with the Communist Party of India (CPI), a key coalition partner in the LDF government, opposing the move. The CPI’s dissent indicates a lack of consensus within the state’s ruling coalition, further complicating the implementation of policies related to national development goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to education policy, funding, and governance, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The most relevant SDGs are:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the central theme of the article. The entire discussion revolves around the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) through the PM SHRI scheme, the Samagra Shiksha education scheme, teacher training, curriculum development, and ensuring educational continuity for students. The article details how a lack of funding affects pre-primary education, textbook distribution, and overall educational quality.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article explicitly highlights how the withholding of educational funds disproportionately affects vulnerable and marginalized groups. It mentions that “nearly 40 lakh students from marginalised sections,” “5.6 lakh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students,” and “1.8 lakh differently abled students” are directly impacted. This connects directly to the goal of reducing inequalities in access to essential services like education.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article discusses the relationship and conflict between the Central and State governments over the implementation of a national education scheme. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is a formal instrument of partnership. The financial arrangement, where the Centre provides a share of the funding (₹18,128 crore as Central share for PM SHRI), is a key aspect of this partnership aimed at achieving educational goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article discusses the Samagra Shiksha scheme and the PM SHRI initiative, which aim to improve the quality of school education for millions of students. The disruption of funds for “free uniform and textbook distribution” directly relates to ensuring free and equitable education.
   • Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education. The article explicitly states that the funding disruption has affected “pre-primary education.”
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities. The article points out that “allowances for female students,” benefits for “Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students,” and “special support, therapies, and assistive devices for 1.8 lakh differently abled students” have been disrupted, directly linking to this target.
   • Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers. The article mentions that “teacher training” is one of the areas affected by the withholding of funds, which is crucial for achieving this target.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability, race, caste… or other status. The article’s focus on the negative impact on “marginalised sections,” “Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students,” and “differently abled students” directly relates to ensuring their inclusion and access to quality education.
3. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships. The MoU between the Union Ministry of Education and the State governments (34 of which have signed) for implementing the PM SHRI scheme is a direct example of a public-public partnership discussed in the article.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure progress:

• Number of students affected: The article states that “nearly 40 lakh students from marginalised sections” are affected, which serves as a direct indicator of the scale of the issue concerning equitable access (Target 4.1, 10.2).
• Number of students from specific vulnerable groups: The mention of “5.6 lakh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students” and “1.8 lakh differently abled students” provides specific metrics to track progress on ensuring equal access for vulnerable populations (Target 4.5).
• Financial investment in education: The article mentions the total outlay for PM SHRI (“₹27,360 crore”) and the Central share (“₹18,128 crore”). The specific amounts of withheld funds due to Kerala (“₹1,158.13 crore”) are also clear financial indicators.
• Number of participating entities in a partnership: The fact that “34 States/Union Territories had signed the MoU” is a clear indicator of the extent of the partnership for implementing the education scheme (Target 17.17).
• Number of upgraded schools: The aim of creating “14,500 exemplar institutions” under the PM SHRI scheme is a quantifiable indicator of progress towards improving education quality.
• Provision of educational materials and support: The disruption to “free uniform and textbook distribution,” “allowances for female students,” and “assistive devices for differently abled students” can be measured (e.g., percentage of students receiving these benefits) to track progress.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thehindu.com