Borrowing Good Practices in Education Sector

The education sector, like any other domain of public service, constantly seeks to improve its effectiveness, inclusivity, and relevance. One strategy that educational institutions and policymakers often employ is borrowing good practices — adopting methods, models, or approaches that have proven successful elsewhere. Borrowing good practices implies more than simple imitation; it involves critical evaluation, contextual adaptation, and thoughtful implementation of strategies that have yielded measurable positive outcomes in other institutions or settings.

What Is Meant by Borrowing a Good Practice?

Borrowing a good practice refers to the process of identifying, analysing, and adapting successful strategies or models from one organisation, institution, or country for application in another. In the context of education, it may include pedagogical methods, curriculum design, teacher training modules, governance models, digital tools, or evaluation frameworks that could lead to improved student learning, equity, access, or efficiency in education delivery.

Benefits of Borrowing Good Practices

Borrowing tested methods can significantly shorten the learning curve for educational reform. Institutions can avoid the pitfalls of trial-and-error, save time and resources, and benefit from refined models. It also fosters cross-cultural learning and innovation, encourages benchmarking and accountability, and helps integrate global standards into local education systems. Ultimately, the main benefit lies in enhanced learning outcomes and better preparedness of learners for the demands of the modern world.

Points to Consider Before Adopting a Practice

While borrowing may seem attractive, not all practices are universally applicable. Several factors must be evaluated:

• Contextual Relevance: A practice successful in one socio-economic, cultural, or institutional context    may not yield similar results elsewhere. • Capacity for Implementation: The human, technological, and financial resources required for effective execution must be assessed.

 • Stakeholder Readiness: Teachers, administrators, students, and parents must have the capacity, acumen, integrity, be oriented and prepared for change.

 • Alignment with Policy Goals: The borrowed practice should support, not contradict, national or institutional educational objectives.

 • Evidence of Success: There must be reliable data or research indicating that the practice has worked elsewhere.

 • Scope for Adaptation: The model should be flexible enough to be tailored to local needs and constraints.

 • Long-term Sustainability: The approach must not be merely fashionable or donor-driven; it should have potential for sustained impact.

Applicability to the Education Sector

Education systems are particularly amenable to cross-learning, given the global nature of knowledge and skills. Borrowing good practices has been central to reform efforts across teaching methods, use of technology, assessment standards, and governance models. For instance, Finland’s emphasis on teacher autonomy and student well-being has inspired education policy dialogue worldwide. Similarly, Singapore’s STEM-focused curricula and emphasis on continuous teacher training have influenced many developing countries.

Indian Experience

Indian policy makers have shown that more often than not Practices being followed in some developed countries are blindly adopted and thrust on Indian education system. Though there have been some success stories the numbers of those that have boomeranged is disturbing and have resulted in chaos all round. The need for critical evaluation, contextual adaptation and stake holder readiness before adopting a system is explained with the help of examples below:

• Class 10 Examinations. Some years ago, a policy was introduced allowing Class 10 examinations to be delinked from School Education Boards. Inspired by models followed in several developed countries, this change aimed to provide greater flexibility in school assessment. However, the policy drew mixed reactions. As a compromise, schools were given the option to either conduct their own Class 10 examinations or continue with the Board-conducted exams. This dual system soon led to confusion and inconsistency across schools. More critically, policymakers underestimated the administrative capacities of schools and overlooked the risks associated with varying levels of academic integrity among school managements and teachers. In a short span, it became evident that schools conducting their own examinations were reporting significantly higher numbers of students achieving a perfect CGPA of 10, compared to those assessed through the Board system. This discrepancy raised serious concerns about the credibility and fairness of assessments. Ultimately, the policy was seen as undermining the integrity of the education system, prompting authorities to revert to status quo ante that is, reinstate the earlier, uniform system of Board-conducted Class 10 examinations.

• Choice Bases Credit System. Drawing inspiration from practices in universities of developed countries, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has directed Indian universities to adopt the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS). However, this directive overlooks certain contextual realities of the Indian higher education landscape. Under the CBCS, a significant responsibility is placed on individual faculty members, who are expected to assess students at the end of each semester and independently award grades. While this model may be viable in elite institutions such as the IITs and IIMs, it poses serious challenges in Tier 2 and Tier 3 institutions, where infrastructure, faculty autonomy, and academic culture may not yet support such decentralised assessment. The CBCS also allows students considerable flexibility in choosing courses, making it difficult to organise centralised examinations due to scheduling conflicts. In India, the traditional role of the Controller of Examinations — a system largely phased out in many developed countries — still remains crucial. Transferring assessment responsibilities to individual faculty members would require a major shift in institutional practices and mindsets. Moreover, many Indian universities continue to follow rigid procedures, such as requiring question papers to be set by faculty from other regions — a clear indication of the prevailing trust deficit and procedural constraints. Given these systemic challenges, a phased and carefully contextualised implementation of CBCS is essential. It will take time, capacity building, and structural reforms before Indian higher education institutions can fully transition to the Choice Based Credit System.

• Requirement of Mandatory Attendance by Students. In universities across developed countries and in most elite institutions, students are given significant flexibility and are not bound by mandatory attendance requirements. Unlike the prevalent system in many Indian universities, there is no rule mandating a minimum 75% attendance to be eligible for end-semester examinations. This approach assumes a certain level of maturity, self-discipline, and a genuine commitment to learning-traits commonly found among students in such institutions. However, in an examination-driven education system where the primary focus of many students is merely to obtain degrees and secure employment, such flexibility is unlikely to yield the desired outcomes.

• Relative Grading System. Some renowned higher education institutions adopt a relative grading system, instead of an absolute grading system, to assess student performance. This approach allows students to understand how they fare compared to their peers and provides more targeted feedback on areas of strength and improvement. It fosters a healthy competitive environment, offers a clearer picture of class standing, and helps identify both high achievers and those who may need additional support. Relative grading is also more adaptable to varying levels of examination difficulty, often resulting in more equitable outcomes. Importantly, by emphasising relative performance, it helps prevent grade inflation and safeguards the integrity of academic qualifications. However, successful implementation requires a solid foundation of clear guidelines, robust assessment methods, and a supportive learning environment – the latter being especially critical. Additionally, institutional decision-making bodies such as the Academic Council and the Governing Body must fully understand the implications of the specific model adopted – whether it is based on percentile cut-offs, standard deviations, or other metrics. Introducing a relative grading system without careful analysis of these parameters risks undermining academic standards and compromising institutional credibility.

Successful Examples from India

In India, the practice of adopting or adapting successful models has found varied success.

• Navodaya Vidyalaya Model: Drawing on the concept of residential schooling to provide quality education to rural children, this model was inspired by elite boarding schools and adapted to serve underprivileged communities. It has produced remarkable academic outcomes and fostered social integration.
• RTE Act’s Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE): Inspired in part by formative assessment practices abroad, this system aimed to reduce stress and enhance holistic development. Initially seen as progressive, it required extensive training and orientation for the teachers that was insufficiently provided.
• Digital Classrooms and MOOCs: India has adopted global digital education tools like MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) through platforms such as SWAYAM, leading to improved access to higher education and continuous learning. However, SWAYAM has its limitations and has had limited success. A lot more needs to be done to make it comprehensive, improve accessibility and increase the domains covered in sufficient details
• Delhi Government Schools Reform: The Happiness Curriculum and School Management Committees (SMCs), adapted from global best practices in social-emotional learning and community engagement, have significantly improved student engagement and parental participation in government schools.

Unsuccessful Attempts and Policy Rollbacks

Not all borrowed practices have yielded success. For instance:

• CCE under RTE (mentioned above), despite its good intent, faced challenges in implementation due to lack of teacher training and clarity in assessment. It led to confusion and dilution of academic standards in some states, eventually prompting its rollback and reintroduction of annual examinations in some form.
• No-Detention Policy: Also inspired by global efforts to reduce student stress and dropout rates, this policy was seen as lowering academic accountability. Without corresponding support structures like remedial education and teacher training, it failed to deliver improved learning outcomes and was revised after several years.
• Outsourced School Management Models: In some Indian states, attempts to replicate Public-Private Partnership (PPP) school management models from countries like the UK faced backlash due to concerns over equity and accountability, leading to policy reversal or dilution.

Conclusion

Borrowing good practices in education is a powerful tool for reform, innovation, and improvement. However, such borrowing must be approached with discernment, sensitivity to local conditions, and a readiness to adapt rather than adopt wholesale. The Indian experience illustrates both the promise and perils of this approach. When contextualised effectively, borrowed practices can help bridge gaps, raise standards, and foster inclusive, quality education. When implemented without adequate preparation or adaptation, however, they may fail to take root and even derail progress. The key lies in learning not just from others’ successes, but also from one’s own experience in adaptation.