The decline of government schools in Jammu and Kashmir is not merely a statistical trend. It is a warning about the changing character of public education in a region where geography, poverty and difficult terrain can make a neighbourhood school the only realistic gateway to learning for many children. Government data shows that the number of government schools in J&K declined from 23,874 in 2014-15 to 18,785 in 2023-24, a reduction of 5,089 institutions, or more than one-fifth of the network. While the government has described the process in terms of closure and merger, and the broader policy of rationalisation is intended to consolidate under-enrolled institutions and optimise resources, the numbers demand a much deeper examination.
The question is not simply how many schools have disappeared from the records. The real question is: have children gained better access to quality education as a result? The latest NITI Aayog assessment makes that question even more pressing. Based on UDISE+ 2024-25 data, 146 government schools in J&K had zero students, while another 1,371 schools were functioning with only a single teacher. The zero-enrolment schools had 61 teachers posted among them, according to the report.
A school without a single student is clearly a case for administrative scrutiny. Keeping such institutions on the books while continuing to allocate human and financial resources makes little sense if the ground reality has changed. Records must reflect reality, and decisions must be based on accurate, updated data.
But the larger concern is the 1,371 single-teacher schools. A single teacher serving multiple grades, managing administrative duties and attempting to provide meaningful instruction across different subjects is being asked to perform an almost impossible task. The 32,303 students enrolled in these schools deserve more than a teacher physically present in a classroom. They deserve a learning environment in which individual attention, subject teaching and academic support are possible.
Rationalisation, therefore, cannot become an accounting exercise. There is a legitimate case for merging schools where enrolment has collapsed and where students can be shifted safely and conveniently to better-equipped institutions. Consolidation can improve infrastructure, staffing and utilisation of public resources. But such restructuring must be accompanied by a careful assessment of distance, transport, terrain, weather, road connectivity and the socio-economic circumstances of children.
What may look like a reasonable distance on a government map can be a formidable journey for a child in a remote mountainous village. Jammu and Kashmir cannot afford a one-size-fits-all approach to school rationalisation. A school in an urban locality and a school in a remote high-altitude or far-flung area cannot be judged by identical parameters.
The learning-outcome dimension makes the matter still more serious. The objective of education policy cannot be reduced to maintaining buildings or reducing the number of institutions. The ultimate measure must be whether children are learning, whether teachers are adequately available, whether classrooms are functional and whether students are receiving the skills required to compete in a rapidly changing world.
The government must therefore undertake a transparent, school-wise audit of the rationalisation exercise. Every merged or closed school should be mapped against the alternative institution to which its students have been shifted. Authorities should disclose how far children now travel, whether transport has been provided where necessary, whether enrolment has actually improved in receiving schools and whether teacher deployment has become more equitable.
At the same time, single-teacher schools need urgent attention. Where enrolment justifies continuation, additional teachers must be provided. Where enrolment is genuinely too low, consolidation should be considered, but only after ensuring that children do not pay the price through longer journeys or reduced access. The presence of 146 zero-enrolment schools and 1,371 single-teacher schools exposes a contradiction that policymakers must address: we may have fewer schools, but that does not automatically mean we have a stronger school system.
J&K needs fewer empty classrooms, certainly, but it needs more effective classrooms, adequately staffed schools and better learning outcomes. School rationalisation should ultimately be about putting resources where children are, not simply reducing the number of institutions on paper.
In a region where education remains one of the strongest instruments of social mobility, every restructuring decision must pass one basic test: does it make quality education more accessible to the child? If the answer is yes, rationalisation is reform. If the answer is no, it is merely arithmetic.
