The NEP Bait and Switch: Child-Centric, but Not Really

When you hear the words "child-centric education reforms," what comes to mind? Probably some beautiful images - children taking the reins of their education, deciding their own curriculum, learning at their own pace, asking non-stop questions, and expecting to be heard and answered.

But here’s the catch: you’d be wrong.

First, the National Curriculum Framework (2005) recommended moving from "textbook-centric" to "child-centric" education. Then, the much-loved 2020 New Education Policy (NEP) continued the trend, stating that:

The aim of education will not only be cognitive development, but also building character and creating holistic and well-rounded individuals equipped with the key 21st-century skills.” The goal is the same - reduce content-based learning and emphasize other skills.

But here is the question that keeps me up at night.

Is this learner-centric? Is this child-centric?

Is the NEP stating, for example, that going forward education would be dictated by the learner’s needs, no matter how diverse or how peculiar they maybe, and no matter how inconvenient or impractical their provision? Certainly not. In fact, it is stating the opposite.

The NEP is Mostly Even More Top-Down and Prescriptive

What the NEP has actually done is to just expand the purview of the same top-down approach to education. The NEP is no longer satisfied with prescribing academic curricula. It now wants to prescribe even more areas of the child's development - from Social-Emotional Learning to Creativity. We are already seeing the result. New education curricula and pedagogies are mushrooming all around the country, now brandishing their "NEP-alignment" prominently on their front pages, assuaging our doubts and calming our nerves. And yet - they will do more of the same. Telling kids what they ought to learn, and how they ought to learn.

I obviously agree that these are valuable ideas introduced with the best intentions. I just don't think they are "learner-centric". If anything, the NEP will make the system even more administration-centric. It is inviting the administrator and the reformer to have even more say in the child’s life and learning.

Whether this will end up being good or bad is besides the point — what is crucial is that we don’t mislabel our reforms as child-centric. The child has little or no say, and that has not changed at all.

Some Parts Are Actually Child-Centric, but Can't Be Implemented

On the other hand, the parts of the NEP that are actually child-centric are badly hamstrung by ground realities. Ground realities that are, poetically, also created by the same administration.

For example, the NEP has been widely praised for its emphasis on providing students more flexibility in course choices. It wants students to choose subjects that interest them, in any combination. But the frank truth is, schools aren’t designed to cater to individual needs. They are setup to manage large groups of students efficiently, and get them into decent colleges via a punishing examination system. Which is why we have fixed schedules, mandatory subjects, and standardized testing buttressed by a multi-billion dollar test prep market.

So where is the space for flexibility? Where is the possibility for child- or learner-centric education? If you have a shred of doubt on this, just read the comments on this video I put out last year. Over 1500 student comments, all with the same complaint: we can't be flexible and take interesting subjects because our schools won't let us.

The Pipe Dream of Flexibility: Comment upon comment laments how these options were not made available to students.

As I write this article, my heart beats for the anger and disappointment of these millions of students. They all know, as I do, that just giving lip service to "flexibility" will not benefit them in any way. What the NEP did was simply draw attention to an option that already existed. CBSE already provides over 160 subjects. But can students take them? Of course not. Year after year, the option of flexibility goes up against the unmovable, inflexible behemoth that is our school system, and stands no chance. The NEP doesn't provide any guidance on how this might be rectified going forward.

So let’s get real. The NEP, even as it expands its view on what should and should not be taught, is still not child-centric for the most part. And where it tries to reach for child-centrism, it is failing because our systems just aren't built for it. What’s worse, many so-called "child-centric" reforms create the illusion of choice while maintaining the same underlying controls. The choices offered are shallow, like being asked to pick your favorite color—but only from a palette someone else chose. 

Sidebar. Skip if you don't care for entertaining analogies.

In human-centric design, a human's needs inform all design choices. When done right, human-centric design solves for the needs and comfort of real human beings. A human-centric chair would be ergonomic, will support the human body’s natural posture and size, reduce strain and discomfort. That’s human-centric design in action—adapting the system to fit the user.

Now, imagine if human-centric designers took some lessons from education reformers. Now, instead of fixing a painful chair, they would offer free painkillers as compensation. In fact, to sweeten the deal, they'd offer you FIVE VARIETIES of the same painful chair - in different colours.

In education, these reforms are equivalent to adding a few bells and whistles to the same rigid system, then calling it revolutionary and congratulating yourself.

A Call for Honest Language

The misuse of terms like "child-centric" and "learner-centric" isn’t just misleading; it’s regressive. It creates false hope while stifling meaningful discussions about what education could be.

If we are serious about child-centric design, here are some real, actionable changes:

• Allow students to help design their schedules and curricula.

• Provide opportunities for true self-paced learning outside rigid grade levels.

• Create systems where students can take breaks or address mental health needs without penalty.

• Reduce the emphasis on standardized testing to allow for diverse measures of success.

Until we do these, let's at least be honest about the limitations of the current system and use language that reflects reality.

---

PS: If you're interested, I do have a vision for such a system. Check it out.