Educational Insights | Stay Informed with Edinbox

In a major development that could chart the destiny of teacher training in India, fifteen globally respected education scholars from all over the world have penned an open letter to Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan calling upon the government to rethink its plan to withdraw the Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) programme. The letter, written on Monday, vehemently opposes the National Council for Teacher Education's (NCTE) draft regulation proposals aimed at phasing out B.El.Ed. by the 2026–27 session and introducing the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP).

The decision comes at a time of increasing unease among scholarly circles regarding what has been termed an "ill-considered" policy change. The B.El.Ed. programme, launched by Delhi University in 1994, is an innovative four-year integrated undergraduate degree specially tailored for elementary education. It has since found acceptance by approximately 30 institutions nationwide. Over the course of three decades, it has earned a reputation for academic seriousness, a robust practicum, and a curriculum that combines disciplinary study with pedagogy.

Some of the signatories to the letter are internationally renowned scholars like Prof Edward Vickers (UNESCO Chair, Kyushu University), Prof Robin Alexander (University of Cambridge), and Prof Michael Apple (University of Wisconsin). These teachers, several of whom have been on the editorial advisory board of the NCTE's Indian Journal of Teacher Education, termed the proposal to replace B.El.Ed. with ITEP as "counter-productive," cautioning that it risks undoing decades of development in elementary teacher education.

"B.El.Ed. is a highly regarded teacher education programme that has stood the test of time over three decades," the letter read. "Discontinuing such a programme that is known for its excellence is counter-productive. Innovation is good when it builds upon what exists—not when it replaces tested models without appropriate thought."

ITEP, also an integrated course with four years of duration, came into operation under the aegis of National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 that stipulates minimum qualification of teachers at all levels as four-year integrated B.Ed. from the year 2030. Under pilot mode launching in the years 2023–24, ITEP has now begun operation in central, state, and selected state-affiliated universities, IITs, NITs, and colleges.

But critics point out that ITEP, being in its early stages, lacks the depth, foundation, and historical heritage of the B.El.Ed. programme. Former DU education dean Prof Anita Rampal, one of the chief architects of the B.El.Ed. curriculum, labelled NCTE's proposal as "shocking and short-sighted."

This course was initiated to fill an integral lacuna in the education system—there was no rigorous graduate-level training in teaching elementary class teachers prior to B.El.Ed.," said Prof Rampal. "We developed this course from ground zero and continued to enhance it year after year. Substituting it with ITEP, which has not yet shown similar outcomes, is likely to compromise the quality of teacher education.

The international scholars echoed similar concerns, noting that B.El.Ed. integrates subject knowledge, child development, pedagogy, and field-based practicum in a manner that few teacher education programmes globally can match.

“B.El.Ed. is renowned in India and abroad as an exemplary, world-class teacher education programme. It has empowered a generation of teachers with deep academic grounding and pedagogic competence,” said the letter.

Other signatories are Prof Paul Morris (UCL Institute of Education), Prof Yusuf Sayeed (University of Cambridge), Prof William Pinar (University of British Columbia), Prof Martin Carnoy (Stanford University), and Prof Angela Little (UCL), among others. These voices are some of the most esteemed institutions in international education policy, curriculum studies, and teacher education.

What has particularly troubled these experts is that the B.El.Ed. course is not merely another degree—it represents a long-overdue change in India's strategy for elementary education. For decades, B.Ed. courses concentrated largely on secondary education (Classes 9–12), with a crucial gap in teacher training for Classes 1 to 8, which now constitute the bulk of the Right to Education Act's mandate.

The NCTE draft rules that came out in February 2025 have raised alarm not only over their content but also over the pace of proposed implementation. With DU already declaring its admission procedure for ITEP from the 2025–26 academic year, the academic fraternity fears that B.El.Ed. could soon be pushed into oblivion without a proper analysis of the implications.

"Scrapping B.El.Ed. without a clear, evidence-based review erodes both India's teacher education system and the autonomy of institutions that have developed this programme," the scholars cautioned.

As India prepares for a significant overhaul of its education system under NEP 2020, the demand to preserve and enhance B.El.Ed. raises a pressing question to policymakers: Does progress require substituting what works, or does it require improving and expanding it?

The NCTE and the Ministry of Education have not officially replied to the letter as yet. Still, with the academic heavyweights having their say and student bodies likely to fall in line, the debate about the future of B.El.Ed. is anything but over.

Some of the students of Government Arts and Science College, Kangeyam, in Tiruppur are going around like headless chickens to obtain their degree certificate even after three years because the college administration did not take necessary action to distribute them through Bharathiar University.

Students claimed that the college administration has directed them to apply for degree certificates directly to Bharathiar University, in contrast to other government colleges where the application is usually made through the college administration.

One such student, K Vijaykumar (name changed), a student of BA English of 2019-22 batch told TNIE that according to instruction by the college, he himself had approached the university directly to degree certificate. He also recollected others that students themselves didn't approach even due to indolence.

"Nevertheless, I still haven't gotten it. Last year, the administration officer at the college instructed me to call the university when I made an inquiry. When I went to the university, they told me that I have to present a letter from the college before the degree certificate procedure can continue," he fretted.

"Because of this, I did not try after that. My friends too have not been given their degree certificates," he claimed.

Another student belonging to the same batch of the Computer Science department informed TNIE that he had given Rs 600 to university when he first applied for a degree certificate.

"Yet the university failed to send the certificate by mail. I received my certificate only when I presented at the university a letter of the Head of the Department attesting my studies here. For this, I paid a penalty of Rs 400 to the university. This was not necessary," he remembered.

Speaking about this, Education Development Committee coordinator K Leninbarathi said, "Generally, private and government colleges send applications for their students to Bharathiar University and receive degree certificates for eligible students. Colleges give the degree certificates to students at the time of their convocations. This is the college's duty."

"When the administration instructs students to take their degree certificates directly, they might encounter practical problems in receiving them from university. In addition, students will lose the festive experience of getting their degree certificates at the convocation," he noted.

When contacted, a senior officer in the examination wing of Bharathiar University informed TNIE that only students of Kangeyam college apply directly for degree certificates.

"Because of this, we cannot award degree certificates to the students, and there is a practical constraint in giving them. This is not preferable. We have told the college administration to apply for the certificates for all students rather than asking the students to apply directly to the university," he added.

According to The New Indian Express reports, college principal SF Naseem Jan told TNIE that only 100 students who completed their degrees during the COVID-19 pandemic are awaiting their certificates.

"We have taken steps to issue the degrees to the students through their respective heads of departments. Starting from this academic year, we will apply directly with the university for the certificates," she said.

Even with a liberal scholarship system, fee exemption, and hefty promotional campaigns, private medical schools in Kerala are facing a seemingly glaring problem: the lack of filling non-clinical postgraduate (PG) seats. In response to a recent query under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 28 seats in MD non-clinical courses like pharmacology, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, and anatomy are unfilled even after the end of the 2024 admission season.

The scenario reflects a worrying trend in the state's medical education system, where young physicians increasingly eschew non-clinical career options due to limited career opportunities and low return on investment.

"Even with these enticing promises, students shy away from taking non-clinical courses," claims Dr Ashik Basheer, state president, General Practitioners Association (GPA). "The actual issue is employability. Most students do not envision successful career development, particularly after forking out Rs 9–10 lakh per year for three years."

While clinical PG seats are highly competitive—with fees usually crossing Rs 17 lakh annually—non-clinical subjects have few takers. To get a clinical PG seat, candidates need to get a rank in the top 2,500 in the NEET-PG exam. For non-clinical courses, even the qualifying percentile is usually enough. But demand is lukewarm.

Private medical colleges have tried to fill this gap in demand by going in for aggressive marketing. One college official, who wished to remain anonymous, conceded that colleges often provide scholarships and fee waivers simply to get applicants. "But students are cautious," the official said. "They see little career opportunities in non-clinical areas, and the cost can be difficult to justify."

The disinterest in the non-clinical streams also jeopardizes the quality of undergraduate medical education. PG students in such departments also act as tutors to MBBS students, and they have an important role to play in core learning. "Without non-clinical PGs, the undergraduate teaching system becomes unsustainable," Dr. Basheer stressed.

Kulathoor Jaisingh, whose lawyer has filed an RTI regarding the imbalances, expressed concern over the imbalances. "We are facing a dearth of doctors, and PG seats, especially in clinical departments, are few. Authorities should give serious thought to increasing clinical PG seats, instead of providing cosmetic measures to fill non-clinical seats," he said.

Notably, the problem mostly exists within private colleges. Non-clinical seats in Kerala government medical colleges have all been filled, aided by superior institution reputation, cheaper tuition, and the added glory of training within the public sector.

Dr. Althaf A, a professor and epidemiologist at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, notices a trend. "Students are career-oriented. Non-clinical posts have improved working conditions, but no guarantee of placement. Those who take them do so out of personal interest or long-term academic goals," he stated. "The actual solution is to boost clinical PG intake in general."

With the state still churning out thousands of MBBS graduates every year, the growing gap between demand for clinical specializations and supply of available postgraduate opportunities risks derailing the career paths of young physicians and the healthcare delivery system as a whole.

Though incentives might provide short-term relief, experts indicate structural reforms and strategic seat allotment as the need of the hour to reconcile employability with educational infrastructure.

Creativity is a force that we typically celebrate for bringing innovation, art, and progress. It's the energy that drives science breakthroughs, the stroke of the brush that creates a work of art, and the idea that transforms the world. What if creativity crosses its boundaries though? When do we stop considering it inspiring and begin to say it's chaotic?

This is the question that has plagued every creator, manager, and even policymaker at some point: Where do we find the line between creativity and chaos?

The Myth of the Mad Genius

Pop culture mythologizes the "mad genius" — the person so full of ideas that they can't be kept in check by rules or routine. From Van Gogh to Steve Jobs, history is filled with geniuses whose genius lived on the edge of chaos. But where passion-driven chaos might create flashes of genius, uncontrolled chaos is not likely to construct anything lasting. An idea without structure is simply noise.

Creativity Needs a Canvas

Creativity, as water, requires a container. Boundaries don't kill creativity — they define it. A writer employs the constraints of language, a filmmaker within a frame, and a startup within budget. It's not the lack of rules that births genius; it's the intentional bending, stretching, and playing with them that does.

In design, we tend to refer to "structured freedom." That is the happy place — where imagination flourishes within limits that direct, but do not confine. Too much structure smothers spontaneity. Too little, and we have an incomprehensible mess.

The Workplace Conundrum

In creative professions, the pull between structure and freedom is most pronounced. Do you allow a team to brainstorm without timelines or deadlines, or do you create deadlines to have something delivered? The answer is balance. Creativity thrives in cultures where teams feel emotionally safe to explore — but are also held to a common aim.

Chaos can yield moments of genius, but long-term creativity — the kind that advances society — takes rhythm, discipline, and repetition.

Social Media, AI, and the New Age of Expression

In the current digital era, creativity is as democratized as it has ever been. Anyone has a platform, a voice, and the means to produce. But in the absence of editorial restraint or ethical limits, content can very easily descend into misinformation, clickbait, or noise. The distinction between expression and disruption has never been more blurred.

Even with AI, which is capable of producing poetry, code, or art in the blink of an eye, we need to consider: Are we amplifying creativity or fueling chaos? The tools are indifferent; it's up to us to use them.

Drawing the Line

So where do we set the boundary? The answer isn't absolute — it's context-dependent, intent-based, and impact-driven. But perhaps the aim isn't to construct a wall between creativity and chaos. Perhaps it's to create a bridge — a fluid framework that allows ideas to travel from free-wheeling imagination to purposeful action.

Creativity requires liberty. But to actually make a difference, it also requires direction.

In a nation where government schools are barely able to provide the basics, Bihar's recent decision to spend ₹300 crore on a mass cleanliness drive is more than an upgrade to sanitation—it's a declaration of intent.

The move to hire professional agencies to provide housekeeping services to schools throughout the state is a sign that there is increasing awareness that cleanliness is not a luxury, but an educational necessity. Out of the total amount, ₹200 crore will be used to enhance hygiene in primary and middle schools, and ₹100 crore for high schools. These amounts will be used to maintain classrooms, toilets, furniture, and the overall school infrastructure—sectors that tend to be victims of chronic neglect.

What is different about this program is its structural strategy. Rather than loading overworked school employees or untrained assistants with the responsibility for cleanliness, the government of Bihar intends to employ trained sanitation experts. Agencies are supposed to provide cleaners with the right equipment and supplies, and headmasters are supposed to oversee daily operations so that maintenance tasks don't interfere with academic schedules.

More significantly, district education officers (DEOs) will be responsible for overseeing agency performance, an accountability measure that has often been lacking in previous efforts.

Fundamentally, this initiative is about dignity—providing students, many of whom are from underserved communities, with access to clean learning spaces. A well-cared-for school not only safeguards health but also influences perception. It informs children that their education is important, and they are important as well.

If done well, Bihar's initiative can serve as an example for other states. Clean schools are not merely about looks—they are about the state assuming responsibility for the spaces in which young minds are formed. In that sense, this ₹300 crore is not merely in mops and brooms, but in Bihar's children.

The India Skills Report 2025 has not only come with numbers — it brings with it a strong narrative of comeback, rebirth, and acknowledgement. Leading the nation in mathematical and computer proficiency, Uttar Pradesh youth are delivering a strong message: when presented with the correct mix of desire and opportunity, even past underdogs can become leaders.

This success is no coincidence. For decades, UP was synonymous with lagging development indicators and lost opportunities. But in recent years, a quiet but profound shift has been taking place—driven by greater emphasis on skill-based education, digital penetration, and industry partnerships.

The fact that 80% of UP's youth now lead in core employability domains such as mathematics and computers is not only a triumph for the state, but also a template for the rest of the nation. No less revealing is the number of students from UP applying for internships and critical thinking jobs, a stark indication that the youth are no longer satisfied with rote learning—they are setting their sights on thinking, constructing, and creating.

Yes, UP ranks third in English proficiency, behind Maharashtra and Karnataka. But that gap as well is narrowing. More significantly, UP is proving that language is no obstacle to logic, technology, or talent.

The ranking of Lucknow among India's top job-generating cities along with Bangalore and Pune reinforces this change. The state might still rank sixth in overall employment on offer, but its rising trend is unmistakable.

What we’re witnessing is a demographic dividend turning into a developmental dividend. If UP sustains this momentum, not just through policy but through continued investments in infrastructure, mentorship, and inclusive learning, it will not just be a part of India’s success story—it will write a large part of it.

From the heart of India rises a new hope—and its name is Uttar Pradesh.