Strengthening Educational Planning in India: The Role of Department of Educational Planning, NIEPA

The Department of Educational Planning at the National Institute of Educational Planning & Administration (NIEPA) has historically played a key role in shaping India’s education policies. Established in 1962 as the Asian Regional Centre for Educational Planners and Administrators by UNESCO, NIEPA has evolved into a premier education policy, planning, and administration institute. NIEPA has been deemed to be a university since 2006. Despite its historical contributions, several critical gaps remain in the field of educational planning in India, especially at the district and state levels under Samagra Shiksha.

  1. Historical Role of the Department of Educational Planning

NIEPA has been instrumental in:

  • Institutionalizing strategic educational planning at the national and state levels.
  • Promoting decentralized planning through school mapping, micro-planning, and school improvement programs.
  • Enhancing capacity-building efforts for education officers and policymakers.
  • Contributing to research and policy formulation through academic publications and advisory roles.

However, new challenges require NIEPA to rethink its strategies, especially regarding technological integration, coordination between agencies, and the need for more trained experts in educational planning.

  1. Contributions of Eminent Past Faculty and Directors

Several key figures have shaped NIEPA’s role in educational planning:

  • Prof. Munis Raza: Led institutional reforms, strengthening NIEPA’s role in policy advisory and training.
  • Prof. Satya Bhushan: Expanded NIEPA’s research scope and integrated contemporary educational challenges into planning frameworks.
  • Prof. Kuldeep Mathur: Advanced policy research and addressed emerging issues in Indian education.
  • Prof. Brahm Prakash: Pioneer in Educational Planning and Policy.
  • Shri Prakash: Economist and Expert in Education Finance.

Prof. Brahm Prakash and Shri Prakash contributed to shaping NIEPA’s academic and policy-oriented research, making it a hub for educational planning and administration, and, along with other faculty members of NIEPA, laid a solid foundation of educational planning in India.

  • Yashpal Aggarwal: Conceptualised District Information System for Education, revolutionizing data-driven educational planning in India.
  • Prof. N.V. Varghese: Greatly contributed to formulating the DPEP Framework and focused on higher education policies, establishing the Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education (CPRHE).
  • Dr. L.S. Ganesh: Dr. Ganesh served as a faculty member in the education planning department. He co-authored a study titled “Alleviation of Rural Poverty,” published by NIEPA in 1986, which examined strategies for poverty reduction through educational planning.
  • Dr. M.M. Ansari: Prof. Ansari served as a fellow at NIEPA, where his work focused on the economics of education and resource mobilization for higher education institutions.
  • Dr. SMIA Zaidi: Was the Head of the Planning Department and contributed significantly towards capacity building for many officers engaged in district planning across the Country, first under the DPEP and later under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programs.
  • Prof. Arun C Mehta: Was also placed in the Department of  Education Planning for a brief period and was assigned the responsibility of Data-Bank, which later nurtured DISE/UDISE over 1.5 decades, which helped NIEPA to acquire UDISE the status of the Official Statistics from 2012-13 onwards.

  1. Present Faculty and Their Contributions

While NIEPA continues to contribute to educational planning, the number of experts in this field remains limited. Some current faculty members include Professor K. Biswal, who Works on the economics of education, decentralized planning, and micro-planning techniques. Professor P. Geetha Rani: Specializes in development economics and education financing. Dr. N.K. Mohanty: Focuses on Manpower Planning, Forecasting, and Macro-level educational planning. Dr. Suman Negi: Researches regional development, educational mobility, and minority education; and Dr. Santwana G. Mishra: is engaged in training initiatives for outcome-based district school educational planning. Despite their efforts, the faculty strength is inadequate to meet the increasing demands of educational planning at national and sub-national levels.

  1. Major Gaps in Educational Planning in India

(i) Lack of Structured Planning Modules at the District and State Levels

While Samagra Shiksha aims to promote need-based, decentralized planning, in practice, district and state-level planning remains weak due to:

  • Absence of structured, evidence-based planning frameworks.
  • The Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWP&B) is becoming a routine exercise rather than a strategic document.
  • Failure to incorporate district-specific needs, such as enrolment trends, school infrastructure deficits, and learning outcomes.

(ii) Poor Integration of Technology in School Education Planning

Despite access to big data through UDISE+, technology is underutilized in school education planning. There is no significant use of:

  • Geographic Information System (GIS) for school mapping and infrastructure planning. The Ministry recently did not engage the Department of Educational Planning in closing or merging many schools across the Country.
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) for predictive analysis of school performance.
  • Real-time monitoring systems to track implementation progress at the district level.

This lack of technological integration results in inefficient allocation of resources and limited impact assessment of educational programs.

(iii) Weak Coordination Between Samagra Shiksha’s TSG and NIEPA

The Technical Support Group (TSG) of Samagra Shiksha operates independently of NIEPA, leading to:

  • Fragmented policy advice with multiple agencies working in silos.
  • Lack of a unified framework for planning and monitoring education programs.
  • Duplication of efforts, reducing overall efficiency in policy implementation.

(iv) Outdated Training Methods and Shortage of Faculty

NIEPA still relies on conventional, lecture-based training rather than adopting modern, hands-on capacity-building approaches. Unlike IIEP Paris, which offers rigorous training in education policy, finance, and strategic planning, NIEPA’s training:

  • Lacks advanced modules on school finance, strategic planning, and data-driven decision-making.
  • It does not emphasize simulation-based learning or practical applications.
  • It does not provide exposure to international best practices.

Additionally, the number of educational planners in India is minimal. Few experts specialize in this field, making it difficult to sustain long-term capacity-building initiatives.

  1. The Way Forward: Recommendations for NIEPA

To address the above-mentioned challenges, NIEPA must take immediate steps to strengthen its role in educational planning:

  1. Develop Comprehensive Planning Modules: NIEPA should create structured templates for district and state-level educational planning, ensuring data-driven decision-making.
  2. Leverage Technology in Educational Planning: Integrating GIS-based school mapping, AI-driven analytics, and real-time monitoring into the Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWP&B) is crucial.
  3. Strengthen Coordination with Samagra Shiksha’s TSG: NIEPA must collaborate closely with TSG and state planning units to ensure coherent policy implementation.
  4. Modernize Training Methodologies: NIEPA should shift from traditional training to hands-on, problem-solving approaches like:
    • Simulation-based planning exercises.
    • Case studies of successful international models.
    • Interactive data-driven decision-making workshops.
  5. Expand Faculty and Train Experts at IIEP Paris
    • NIEPA must recruit more faculty members who specialize in educational planning.
    • Faculty and senior planners must undergo rigorous advanced training at IIEP Paris, which is globally recognized for its expertise in educational policy, strategic planning, and financing.

  1. Concluding Observations

Despite its significant contributions to Indian education, the Department of Educational Planning at NIEPA must evolve to meet new challenges in educational planning. The lack of structured planning at district and state levels, poor technology integration, weak inter-agency coordination, and outdated training methods continue to limit the impact of education policies.

For NIEPA to lead educational planning, it must expand its faculty, modernize its training programs, integrate advanced planning techniques, and ensure rigorous capacity-building at all levels. By taking these steps, NIEPA can fulfil its mandate of developing robust, data-driven, and future-ready educational policies for India.

Education for All in India