The Right to Education (RTE) Act lays down a clear foundation for schooling in India. It specifies minimum working days and instructional hours to ensure that every child receives a basic standard of education.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 builds on this vision — promising reduced academic burden, conceptual understanding, and joyful, child-friendly learning.
But today, a serious question must be asked:
Are we using these frameworks to support children — or to justify overburdening them?
The Misuse of “Minimum”
Under RTE, instructional time is clearly defined as 1000 hours per academic year for for sixth class to eighth class.
These are minimum requirements, meant to ensure that children are not deprived of learning.
Yet in Goa, instructional time has effectively been increased to 1200 hours, with NEP implementation cited as one of the reasons.
This raises a fundamental concern:
How does a law designed to prevent under-education become a tool to justify overloading children?
Already Long School Days
Even before these changes, children were already spending around 5.5 hours a day in school.
That is a substantial portion of a child’s day — and this is before we account for:
- Homework
- Projects
- Tuition classes
So the question arises:
If children were already spending long hours in school, why was there a need to increase instructional time further?
Cutting Vacations to Increase Hours
What's worse is that the increase in instructional time has not come from longer school days.
It has come from reducing vacations.
April — traditionally part of the summer break — has now been converted into a full academic month, despite being one of the hottest periods of the year.
This was a time when children:
- Rested and recovered
- Played outdoors
- Explored hobbies and interests
- Spent meaningful time with family
That space has now been taken away.
Are we really increasing learning time — or simply reducing a child’s time to rest, recover, and grow?
What NEP Actually Says — And What We Are Doing Instead
NEP 2020 is very clear about the direction education must take.
It explicitly calls for:
- Reduction of curriculum content to focus on core essentials
- Critical thinking over rote learning
- Experiential, activity-based learning
- Joyful, interactive classrooms
- Integration of arts and sports into everyday learning
Learning, according to NEP, should be:
- Inquiry-based
- Discussion-based
- Discovery-driven
- Collaborative and engaging
In fact, NEP clearly states that reducing content is necessary to create space for deeper and more meaningful learning.
The Contradiction We Cannot Ignore
Now compare this with what is happening on the ground:
- Instructional hours increased to 1200
- Vacations reduced
- Academic time expanded
- Children still dependent on tuition
This raises a critical contradiction:
If NEP is reducing content to make learning deeper and more meaningful, why are we increasing instructional time instead of improving how that time is used?
More Time vs Better Learning
NEP does not ask for more hours.
It asks for better use of existing hours.
It envisions classrooms where:
- Students ask questions
- Learning happens through activities
- Teachers engage, not just instruct
- Arts and sports become part of learning
But this requires:
- Proper teacher training
- Classroom readiness
- Thoughtful implementation
Not simply adding more hours to the calendar.
NEP asks for better learning, not longer schooling.
RTE Does Not Support Overburdening Our Children
RTE does not just define minimum hours — it also defines the nature of education under Section 29.
It clearly states that learning must be:
- Child-friendly
- Free from fear, trauma, and anxiety
- Focused on holistic development
When children are engaged in continuous academic activity — with reduced breaks and extended yearly schedules — we must ask:
Are we still respecting the spirit of RTE?
Because rest is not a luxury.
It is essential for learning.
More Time, Same Problems
If increasing instructional time truly improved learning, we would expect:
- Reduced dependence on tuition
- Better conceptual understanding
- Lower stress levels
But reality tells a different story.
Children continue to:
- Attend tuition after school
- Struggle with academic pressure
- Depend on external support to cope
more time is not improving outcomes, what exactly is it achieving?
The Real Issue: Quality, Not Quantity
If classroom teaching were effective:
- The minimum hours defined under RTE should be sufficient
- Children should not need tuition after school
- Learning should happen within school hours
Increasing time — by cutting vacations — does not address the real issue.
It only increases the burden on children.
The Question That Needs an Answer
If children are spending 5.5 hours a day in school, and even more days in the year (due to School in April) why are they still dependent on tuition to understand what is taught?
Because this reveals the truth:
- The issue is not time, the issue is implementation
Are We Forgetting the Child?
A child’s life cannot be reduced to a continuous academic cycle.
Children need:
- Rest
- Play
- Unstructured time
- Space to grow beyond textbooks
By reducing vacations while maintaining already long school days, we are not improving education.
We are compressing childhood.
The Way Forward
Parents are not against NEP. We support its vision and want it implemented in its true spirit and intent
But support also means asking the right questions,
- Why increase instructional hours beyond RTE norms?
- Why reduce vacations instead of improving classroom quality?
- How does this align with child-friendly education?
- Why does tuition remain necessary despite increased time?
Final Thoughts
RTE defines the minimum a child must receive.
NEP defines the direction education must take.
Neither was designed to justify increasing academic load at the cost of a child’s well-being.
If improving education comes at the cost of childhood, we need to pause and ask — are we moving forward, or in the wrong direction?
Comments