E-Paper
PARAKH proposes classroom interventions to address learning gaps found in 2024 survey
PARAKH suggested play-based literacy and numeracy at the foundational stage and concept-based mathematics
Prefer HTon Google
The national assessment regulator has proposed targeted interventions, including identifying weak competencies and tailoring classroom interventions to monthly assessments and data-based reviews to help states and districts address learning gaps identified in its 2024 national school survey.
Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development (PARAKH), the regulator, also suggested play-based literacy and numeracy at the foundational stage, guided reading, concept-based mathematics, and critical-thinking activities in higher grades.
PARAKH was established under the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) as per the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 to set uniform evaluation standards across all school boards and manage large-scale assessments.
It presented a plan in the form of a framework to over 600 state and district education officials from all 36 states and Union Territories during workshops in New Delhi from September 18 to 30. The plan seeks to translate national learning assessment survey PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan (PRS) 2024 results into government interventions tailored to students’ learning needs at the foundational, preparatory and middle stages of schooling.
“PRS results act as diagnostic signals, not final judgments,” said PARAKH CEO and head Indrani Bhaduri. She added the workshops are intended to disseminate results, analyse key insights, and develop targeted action plans.
Bhaduri said district-level workshops would be important in bringing the findings to local education functionaries.
The document ‘Post PRS 2024 intervention’, which includes the framework, states that plans would play a crucial role in enabling local functionaries, including teachers, principals, and communities, to engage with the findings and develop district-specific interventions.
The stated aim is to turn national evidence into district-level action for improving learning levels.
The PRS 2024 was conducted in December 2024, assessing over 2.1 million students in 74,229 schools across 781 districts in Classes 3, 6 and 9. Its findings, released in July 2025, showed that average mathematics scores fell from 60% in Class 3 to 37% in Class 9. Language scores declined across the three stages.
The post-survey framework proposes that district teams review the national, state and district reports, identify competencies needing attention and prepare action plans with targets, strategies, responsibilities, timelines and evidence of progress.
A five-step monthly roadmap
The operational roadmap presented during the workshops suggested five steps: Identify weak competencies, plan the month’s focus, deliver targeted teaching, assess students, and report the results.
Under the first step, district academic teams are to examine PRS reports and pinpoint low-performing competencies across subjects and the foundational, preparatory, and middle stages. The exercise is intended to identify specific skills that students are struggling to demonstrate, rather than treating an overall score as the only measure of performance.
In the second step, districts will select competencies for focused work during the coming month and identify schools where the intervention is required. The workshop inputs describe this as a competency-focused plan, including areas of language and mathematics.
In the third step, teachers would deliver classroom instruction and remedial activities aimed at the selected competencies. The proposed resources include integrated classroom activities, remedial tools, and regional-language translations of PARAKH’s global activity bank.
In the fourth step, students would be assessed on the competencies selected for that cycle at the end of the month. The workshop presentation specifies six competencies for the preparatory stage, with three questions per competency—18 questions in all. For the middle stage, it proposes 10 competencies, each assessed through three questions, for a 30-question test.
In the final step, schools would submit results through a standardised Google Form circulated by district officials, which would then be compiled and reviewed by state education authorities and SCERTs.
The monthly cycle is designed to give officials a way to review whether targeted teaching is helping students answer questions correctly and decide what to focus on next. The framework does not report outcomes from the proposed cycle.
Teaching approaches
The document recommends that interventions reflect the developmental and learning needs of students at different stages.
At the foundational stage (pre-primary to Class 2), suggested approaches include multi-sensory activities that combine auditory, visual and hands-on learning, play-based literacy and numeracy, scaffolded activities that gradually increase in complexity; and small-group instruction for children needing additional support. It also proposes parental engagement through take-home literacy and numeracy materials.
For the preparatory stage (Class 3 to 5), the framework lists structured reading interventions, guided comprehension, vocabulary-building, and concept-based mathematics activities. It also suggests inquiry-driven science, peer-assisted learning, arts and movement activities, and age-appropriate digital tools.
At the middle stage (Class 6 to 8), proposed strategies include critical-reading discussions, research-based and argumentative writing, real-world mathematical applications, data interpretation, coding and engineering projects. The document also recommends debates, logical-reasoning activities, digital-literacy exercises and career exploration.
The framework calls for district and state teams to use the survey findings to decide which competencies and strategies require priority.
Review and interventions
District education officers are expected to coordinate the process with block officials, DIET faculty, SCERT experts and teachers, identify priority schools and monitor classroom implementation. Monthly data reviews are intended to help officials decide whether an intervention should continue, be modified or intensified, or whether a promising practice should be scaled up.
The framework proposes using the survey alongside administrative data, including UDISE, to examine how teacher-quality and school-infrastructure indicators relate to student achievement.
In the medium term, PARAKH proposes an intervention handbook, a dynamic item bank, and information and communication technology-based learning resources. Longer-term measures include policy briefs to inform curriculum review, pre-service teacher education and textbook revisions, as well as online forums for educators.
