When the Central Board of Secondary Education launched its performance and accreditation index earlier this year, it signalled a quiet revolution in India’s education governance. For the first time, schools are being rated through data that capture learning outcomes, teacher training, infrastructure, digital readiness, and governance.
The initiative represents a clear shift from anecdotal reputation to evidence-based measurement of quality. Yet, the question persists: can data-driven rankings genuinely raise teaching standards, or will they end up widening the gulf between private and public schools?
READ | How OPEC+ action could strain India’s energy bill
CBSE performance cards and learning gaps
The PAI is rooted in the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP), which sought to move India’s school system away from rote learning and input-based evaluation. For decades, performance in the education sector has been assessed by enrolment numbers and pass percentages rather than by what children actually learn.
The National Achievement Survey 2023 and ASER 2022 reveal the consequences of this neglect: fewer than half of Class 5 students can read a Class 2 text, and basic arithmetic skills have shown little improvement for more than a decade.
Against this backdrop, the PAI aims to bring accountability through measurable outcomes. It grades schools on four broad pillars — learning achievements, governance, teacher capacity, and infrastructure — and relies on self-reported data verified by independent audits.
The CBSE argues that this framework will enhance transparency, enable more targeted funding, and provide an empirical base for training and curriculum support. The goal is not to name and shame, but to create a feedback loop where data inform decision-making at every level of the system.
What the numbers reveal
The early results tell a story that mirrors India’s wider inequalities. In pilot tests across roughly 3,000 schools, those in Delhi, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu emerged as top performers on indicators such as learning outcomes and digital readiness. Meanwhile, large swathes of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh continue to struggle because of teacher vacancies, inadequate facilities, and weak internet connectivity.
According to NAS 2023, only about 27 per cent of schools currently meet NEP learning benchmarks. The UDISE+ database of the Ministry of Education shows that one in five government schools lacks internet access, while roughly 10 percent still do not have usable toilets for girls—factors that directly shape attendance and learning continuity.
Private schools, by contrast, dominate the infrastructure and governance categories. They enjoy an edge largely because of resources rather than superior pedagogy: they can invest in classroom technology, attract better-qualified teachers, and command greater parental involvement. Unless the PAI controls for such disparities, its rankings could end up reproducing existing inequalities instead of correcting them.
Perils of ranking without support
The experience of other countries illustrates both the promise and the peril of data-driven accountability. In the United States, the No Child Left Behind Act linked school funding to standardised test scores, a move that led to “teaching to the test” and even instances of data manipulation.
In the United Kingdom, Ofsted inspections created intense compliance pressures, pushing schools to focus on appearances rather than pedagogy. The OECD’s PISA assessments helped countries benchmark progress, but those that used the data to penalise underperformers rather than build capacity saw morale fall among teachers.
India could face similar risks. Many public schools function with skeletal administrative staff, making extensive data reporting a logistical burden. Limited digital literacy can lead to inaccurate entries or misinterpretation of indicators.
The temptation to inflate scores for prestige or funding eligibility is real. For teachers already burdened with heavy syllabi and administrative tasks, another layer of evaluation may appear punitive rather than empowering. Accountability that arrives without resources or professional development risks alienating those on the frontlines.
Making data work for teachers
Yet data can also transform classrooms when used as a diagnostic tool instead of a disciplinary weapon. The CBSE’s performance cards could serve as mirrors that help schools identify weaknesses and design targeted interventions. For that to happen, teacher mentoring must replace one-off workshops. Regular peer observation, coaching, and collaborative lesson planning can turn performance feedback into professional growth.
The CBSE and state education departments should also establish District Education Data Cells to interpret results contextually. A rural school dealing with monsoon disruptions or seasonal absenteeism cannot be compared directly with an urban private institution. Data must therefore be analysed within socio-economic clusters so that corrective measures are fair and relevant.
Technology can amplify this effort. AI-based dashboards could integrate attendance, test performance, and continuous assessment to detect early learning losses. Linking the Digital India framework with school dashboards would create a live feedback ecosystem accessible to principals and district officers.
Equally vital is community participation. When parents and local education committees have access to simplified scorecards, accountability becomes a shared civic responsibility. Transparent data can turn citizens into advocates for better schooling rather than passive recipients of government schemes.
To make this process meaningful, underperforming schools identified through the PAI should automatically qualify for targeted support—whether for teacher training, digital infrastructure, or remedial programmes. Otherwise, performance cards will risk becoming little more than glossy report cards.
Reform that must follow
For the PAI to succeed, three policy shifts are indispensable. First, the system must protect teachers from punitive use of data. Information should primarily guide mentoring and internal improvement rather than public ranking. A performance culture rooted in fear will produce short-term compliance, not long-term learning gains.
Second, the education bureaucracy itself needs data literacy. Collecting statistics is easy; interpreting them well is harder. Administrators and school heads must be trained to analyse patterns, identify outliers, and design context-specific interventions.
Finally, the CBSE and the Ministry of Education should create an independent research and review mechanism, akin to the UK’s Education Endowment Foundation, to validate findings and test what interventions actually work. Such a body would prevent misuse of data and turn the PAI into an evidence-generation tool for national policy.
The performance index, if properly implemented, can transform how India thinks about education reform—shifting the focus from inputs to outcomes and from inspection to improvement. But its success will depend on the spirit in which it is used. Data can illuminate gaps, yet only institutional reform and teacher motivation can close them.
Accountability works best when it encourages, not intimidates. CBSE’s performance cards will matter not because they assign grades to schools, but because they can help teachers see what needs fixing and why. When measurement is paired with mentorship, and transparency with trust, India’s classrooms will finally begin to reflect the learning goals that the NEP 2020 envisioned.