By Benjamin Lyngdoh
The first Performance Grading Index (PGI) Report was released in the year 2017-18. In that report, Meghalaya scored 584/1000. In the latest report of 2024-25, Meghalaya scored 448/1000. The state government has been citing the score 448 as against scores of recent years and claiming gradual improvements in the school education scenario. This is misleading and does not really address the problem. The correct figure against which the comparison should be made is the score 584 from 2017-18. This is because the 2017-18 data provide a baseline reference point for correctly and logically assessing and evaluating change (positive, neutral, or negative) over the succeeding years. At current rates of improvements, it will take Meghalaya another 4 years to reach its baseline score of 584.
The top most grades are attained by Chandigarh and Punjab. They achieved Prachesta-1 (meaning striving and attempting to achieve its goals through well-defined strategies). Chandigarh is a Union Territory with a geographical area of 114 sq. kms. Hence, a proper comparison and learning can be derived by looking at the state of Punjab.
Meghalaya has been placed in the lowest grade Akanshi-3 (meaning aspiring to achieve greater heights in school education). The problem with aspiration is that it remains as a dream if proper plans and strategies of progress are not in place.
In 2022, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) came to power in Punjab by winning 92 of the 117 Assembly seats. One of the poll promises – ‘to transform school education based upon the Delhi model’. The major focus was on government schools. For 2026-27, Government of Punjab allocated 19279 crore for education. This is an increase of 7% from the previous year while also launching ‘Sikhya Kranti 2.0’ (meaning education revolution/reform on a sustained basis) with an outlay of ` 3500 crore over the next six years.
According to the government website, other electronic sources, and some news stories; Punjab has been consistently focusing on upgrading and improving infrastructure in government schools, teacher training, teacher capacity building, access to digital learning, and student performance. A critical part of the transformation strategy includes sending government school teachers to countries like Singapore and Finland for training and development of global education models, better methods of teaching, awareness of contemporary pedagogy practices, and effective quality education.
Under infrastructure development, the Government of Punjab has upgraded around 12000 government schools till 2025-26, constructed new classrooms and smart facilities, provided Wi-Fi access, clean drinking water, and smart interactive panels for all. At the centre of it all is the provision of a modern digital education ecosystem pivoting around smart classrooms, advanced science laboratories, E-learning platforms, etc. In addition, the government launched the ‘School of Eminence’ initiative in order to provide students with high-quality education as per international standards. Further, government school Headmasters underwent leadership training at Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad; schools saw the introduction of ‘Business Blaster Programme’ aimed at encouraging entrepreneurial thinking and generation of business ideas amongst the students.
Two of the prominent intervention outcomes include – improved arithmetic skills amongst the kids, and an increase in the number of students from Punjab who cleared the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) and National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).
However, The Indian Express report dated March 16, 2026 detailed that ‘of the 31 AAP MLAs with school-going children, including six state ministers, only one, namely, Sukhveer Singh Maiserkhana (Maur, Bathinda) has his children studying in a state government school in the 2025-26 academic session, and, at least 25 of these MLAs had already enrolled their children in private schools before they were elected to the Assembly’.
The degree of attention given by Meghalaya to the conditions of government schools leaves a lot to be desired. The conditions of the schools in the rural hamlets are in bad shape, both in terms of hard and soft infrastructure. The Government of Meghalaya budget 2026-27 allocated around 15% of the total budgetary expenditure towards interventions in the education sector. The recommended norm for such allocation is 25%. This becomes the starting point of the problem. Ways and means are required to gradually shift the 15% towards 25% in (say) the coming 5-7 years. Missionary schools will continue to play their commendable part in school education. However, it is only the government schools that can pull the underprivileged and needy into an equal platform of knowledge and skills that are required in the 21st century. If school education is not equitably available and accessed by the underprivileged, then the gap between the rich and poor will only continue to increase in the years to come. This has a cascading effect into social problems of mental health, drugs and substance abuse, theft, crime, etc.
According to 2024-25 Report of Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+) on infrastructure, out of the reported 14587 schools in Meghalaya – 29% have library/book bank/reading corner, 53% have a playground, less than 1% possess a digital library, 32% have a kitchen garden, 69% have a functioning girl’s toilet, 72% are with a functioning boy’s toilet, 28% have functional electricity, 69% have functional drinking water facility, and 4% have some form of solar panels installed. All of the above figures are lower than the national average. Basic amenities and facilities are a key to holistic learning and child development. For instance, take drinking water. It is a basic requirement which also impacts upon the health and well-being of a child. Its non-availability may impact upon health, then cascading upon absenteeism, and then may de-motivate a child from regularly attending school, etc.
In relation to international teacher training, the financial resources are limited. A better option would be to invite trainers into Meghalaya. This is more viable than sending teachers abroad. However, this intervention should not precede the requirements of overcoming the infrastructure limitations.
Lastly, PGI is different from PGI 2.0 in terms of scope and approach. PGI 2.0 is NEP 2020 oriented. The scope is more towards qualitative outcomes rather than quantitative. Now, it is no longer about 100 students attending school, rather, it is about what is the quality and abilities of the 100 students. Now, it is not only about a school premises having tap water, rather, it is about whether the tap water is fit for drinking or not. PGI 2.0 is about teacher training and capacity building which is in line with the requirement of courses and vocations under NEP 2020. Unless the Government of Meghalaya turns its eyes and attention to these aspects, and maybe has a selective implementation of NEP at school education, the future looks even more challenging.
(The writer can be reached at benjamin@nehu.ac.in)
