PHASE 3

How might Teach For India make significant

progress towards its Vision while staying true
to the core of its Mission?

Arhan Bezbora
Phase 3 Coordinating Committee
July 7th, 2015

I.

INTRODUCTION

In their Stanford Social Innovation Review article Zeroing in on Impact, Colby et al. (Susan
Colby, 2004) speak about the Goliath-sized aspirations of nonprofit organizations:
Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit that has built more than 150,000 homes in the United
States and abroad since its founding in 1976, constructs a new house every 26 minutes,
but its ultimate goal is even bigger to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness
from the world, and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action. The
Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental action organization with 1 million
members and online activists, seeks to arrest global warming on an annual budget of
$39 million, just 1 percent of what the major car companies spend on advertising alone
each year. Harlem Childrens Zone (HCZ), a nonprofit community-based organization
that provides programming for more than 7,500 at-risk children in New York City, strives
to improve the lives of poor children in Americas most devastated communities on
an annual budget of less than $15 million.
1

Teach For India (TFI) is a nonprofit with a similarly audacious vision - to realize a day
when all children in India attain an excellent education. The audacity of this vision is matched
only by the magnitude and complexity of the problem over 300 million children engaged in a
range of educational activities that are both formal and informal in nature, in nearly 1.5 million
schools with more than 7 million teachers that are run by both private and public providers
across 29 states, 7 union territories and more than 650 districts of India (Report, 2014).
In order to make any kind of significant and meaningful progress towards a vision as
grand and ambitious as TFIs, the authors argue it is essential to take on the challenge of
mapping limited resources against seemingly unlimited needs through a strategic-planning
process that gets critical resource decisions right and allocates time, talent, and money to the
activities that have the greatest impact.
The purpose of this note is to outline the background and underlying rationale for Teach For
Indias decision to embark on a strategic-planning process to design what we are calling Phase
3 of our journey. In particular, this note has 3 main objectives:
1. To provide historical perspective on the big questions driving our goals and priorities in
the first 7 years.
2. To make a case for why the status quo is insufficient to solve the wicked problem of
education system change, necessary to achieve the vision of the organization.
3. To bring out the tensions inherent in our current organizational and programmatic
approach that will need to be resolved through a strategic-planning process that
involves a wide and diverse range of stakeholders.

II.

LOOKING BACK: OUR FIRST STEPS

In its first phase (2009-13), Teach For India asked itself the question How do we start
strong? As an organization, we wanted to learn and understand as much as we could of our
Fellows, our students and our communities. We wanted to build a credible brand and build
great momentum around our mission. We wanted to hire outstanding, driven people. We
wanted to think deeply about how we could put our children on a different life path and evolve
a starting vision for our students. We wanted to build an effective, influential and credible
board. We wanted to define our model and adapt it to our local contexts. We wanted to secure
significant funding. We wanted to create strong starting systems and processes that would
enable us to grow. And perhaps most importantly, we wanted to build a culture of passion and
urgency that was firmly embedded in our core values.
In our second phase (2013-17), the question we have asked ourselves is How can we
deepen and consolidate our impact? Given our early successes and the proof-points that have
been created among students, Fellows, and Alumni, we now aspire to go deeper into how our
classrooms can improve and endure, deeper into the impact that our Fellows and Alumni can
have, and deeper into the excellence that our staff can exemplify.

To do this, in Phase 2, we will focus on improving our classroom quality by pushing our
floor up and pushing our bar up. We will strengthen our new Fellow leadership development
framework. We will dramatically improve our internal communication, and our external media
presence. We will strengthen and improve the efficiency of our systems, policies and processes.
We will deepen our understanding of our prioritized puzzle pieces and build city-level Alumni
networks that begin to show the power of the collective. We will transition from short-term
staff teams making 2-3 year commitments to long-term staff teams building a career at TFI,
knowing that increased tenure in roles will dramatically increase our ability to be excellent and
develop expertise. We will provide more coaching and support to our staff to increase their
well-being, skill and effectiveness. We will define and measure our student, Fellow and Alumni
impact more clearly. We will continue to be true to our culture and core values, and ensure all
of TFIs people and processes are aligned to those values.
In response to these fundamental questions driving TFI over the first 7 years, we have
taught 30,000+ children, identified and built relations with 268 schools, contextualized the
Fellowship model, evolved a student and a Fellow vision, refined how we recruited and
selected, grown from 87 Fellows to 887 Fellows and from 8 staff members to 180 staff
members, built strong media and social media presence, secured 94+ crores of funding, got
strong starting support from 7 city governments, built awareness of the education crisis
through our inspirED conferences, trained over 1100 Fellows in 9 institutes and built a strong
and committed board. We have witnessed examples of transformational learning in classrooms
and of Alumni pushing to bring about significant change through startups and positions of
leadership in schools, communities, nonprofits, and corporate organizations.
Given these early successes and the momentum we have built, why do we need a shift

in strategic approach? And what is the underlying rationale to engage in a rigorous strategic-
planning exercise at this time in our journey?

III.

LOOKING AHEAD: WHY PHASE 3?

There are two main reasons why we need a shift in strategic approach in the near
future. The first has to do with the enormity of our vision and the need to clarify our intended
impact. The second has to do with the challenges faced in operationalizing our mission and the
need to clarify our theory of change. In the next few sections, we dive deeper into each of these
two reasons and illustrate the competing tensions and the factors underlying them, which the
Phase 3 strategic exercise is designed to address. But first, we try and understand the very
nature of the problem we are trying to solve by characterizing it using the conceptual
framework of wicked problems.

A.

EDUCATION SYSTEM CHANGE AS A WICKED PROBLEM

Providing a high-quality education to all children in a school or even a classroom is no easy
task. Providing an excellent education rooted in holistic academic, moral, and emotional
development, to all children in India is difficult to comprehend or even wrap ones mind
around. In fact, there are very few countries in the world that have come close to achieving this
at any point in their history and those that have made great progress have focused on changing
the entire systems of schooling and education serving students and defining the roles of the
numerous government, private, and civil society players in the system as well as the
relationships among them (Sahlberg, 2012) (Mona Mourshed, 2010). Based on the global
experience, it is thus clear that reaching all children in a particular region or country is only
possible through changes in the entire system of education, yet the reason so few examples of
transformational systemic change in education exist is because the immense scale, scope, and
complexity of system change make it a classic wicked problem, which, according to Professors
Horst W.J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber of the University of California Berkeley, have
innumerable causes, are tough to describe, and dont have any right answers (Horst Rittel,
1973). Specifically, some characteristics that make the problem of education system change a
wicked one are (Camillus, 2008):

1. There is no definitive formulation of the problem itself - Its not possible to craft a well-
defined problem statement for an education system, given the wide variety of
stakeholders with very different values and priorities (students, parents, teachers,
principals, bureaucrats, politicians, researchers, non-profit leaders, private school
operators to name a few), and the complex, entangled nature of root causes. For
example, is the low level of learning outcomes in Indian schools a result of poor
pedagogical practices or uninspired school leadership? Or is it due to an outdated

curriculum, weak public-sector accountability and incentives, or low student/parent

engagement and motivation? And is the quality of student outcomes only to be
measured through scores on language and mathematics or should it also include the
moral and spiritual development of children and youth? These are all questions where
the symptoms of the problem itself are uncertain, the root causes are unclear, and the
choices between alternatives may involve clashes in the value systems of stakeholders.

2. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad - Ordinary
problems have solutions that can be objectively evaluated as right or wrong, however,
choosing a solution to a wicked problem is largely a matter of judgment. Moreover,
given the competing value systems and priorities of stakeholders in the Indian education
system, any conversation on problem or solution is inherently a political one and any
discussion on the aims of education and the interventions needed to achieve those
aims has no one right answer but instead, needs to be negotiated through a process of
informed dialogue and debate.

3. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem - Its
possible to determine right away if a solution to an ordinary problem is working. But
solutions to wicked problems generate unexpected consequences over time, making it
difficult to measure their effectiveness.

4. Every solution to a wicked problem is a one-shot operation - Solutions to ordinary
problems can be easily tried and abandoned. With wicked problems, every
implemented solution has consequences that cannot be undone and because there is no
opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly. This stems
from the fact that the primary beneficiaries of an education system - children and youth,
go through the process of education only once and any positive or negative impact on
their learning and development cannot be reversed. Thus, stakeholders dealing with an
education system must take full responsibility for the consequences of any actions they
take, because those actions will have such a large irreversible impact and are hard to
justify.

5. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem - While
an ordinary problem is self-contained, a wicked problem is entwined with other
problems and the direction of causality is not clear. For example, does lack of
educational attainment lead to poverty or does poverty lead to lack of educational
attainment? Similarly, do improvements in the quality of health and nutrition of children
impact their educational outcomes or vice versa? In other words, how are decision-
makers to extricate the wicked problem of education from the interconnected wicked
problems of poverty, malnutrition, and poor health (just to name a few)?

B.

CLARIFYING INTENDED IMPACT

Given the wickedness of the problem, if TFI is to catalyze systemic change and make
significant progress towards its vision, it is essential as a first step to define in very clear terms
what the organizations intended impact will be going forward. According to Colby et al. (Susan
Colby, 2004), Intended impact is a statement or series of statements about what the
organization is trying to achieve and will hold itself accountable for within some manageable
period of time. It identifies both the benefits the organization seeks to provide and the
beneficiaries.

For TFI to clarify its intended impact, we would need to first define what aspect of our
vision is in scope and out of scope in the given time period. In other words, which children
are we trying to impact? All children (this includes children from privileged backgrounds,
children from marginalized communities in tribal areas, children with learning disabilities as
well as children currently out of school)? Or only children from low socio-economic
backgrounds in Tier 1 and 2 cities? And what do we mean by excellent education? Is it an
education centered on driving academic achievement, on fostering certain values and mindsets,
or is it an education that focuses on making youth employable? Or one that creates more
informed, responsible, and civically engaged citizens of India?

To gain clarity on the answers to these fundamental vision-related questions, it is
necessary for our Board and Leadership team to work closely with our community to define
what success will look like for Teach For India in the future and to set the boundaries of the
organizations playing field and its impact during that period.

C.

CLARIFYING THEORY OF CHANGE

The flip side of Intended Impact is Theory of Change. Theory of change explains how
the organizations intended impact will actually happen, the cause-and-effect logic by which
organizational and financial resources will be converted into the desired social results. Often an
organizations theory of change will take into account not only its own resources but also those
that others bring to bear (Susan Colby, 2004).
In Phase 1 and 2, Teach For Indias mission has been operationalized through a two-part
theory of change, articulated in the language of a short-term and a long-term (as viewed
from the perspective of an individual going through the program). In the short-term, Teach For
India runs a Fellowship program through which it recruits and selects the most promising youth
from the nations top colleges and workplaces and places them in under-resourced schools in
low-income communities as full-time teachers for 2 years. Through the 2 years, TFI provides
Fellows with intensive ongoing training and support to accelerate their development as
teachers and leaders who are committed to changing the life trajectories of their students. This
grassroots experience exposes Fellows to the realities of Indias education system and builds in
them the passion and the commitment to catalyze change in the long-term, a journey which
begins in their role as Alumni once they complete the Fellowship and continues as they identify
their piece of the puzzle of education inequity and attain positions of leadership and

influence at all levels of the education system and outside it, in the private, public, and
nonprofit sectors.
TFIs unique value proposition lies precisely in this two-part theory of change,
nevertheless, we believe that if we continue to operate with the same driving questions and
assumptions as in Phase 1 and Phase 2 (described in section II above), we will not be able to
make giant strides towards our vision. Why is that?

C.1

DISPROPORTIONATE FOCUS ON THE SHORT-TERM

The first glimpse of an answer to this question comes from a simple back-of-the-envelope
calculation of the split of human and material resources allocated to executing the short-term
theory of change (i.e. driving Fellow and Student Impact) versus executing the long-term
theory of change (i.e. driving Alumni Impact), illustrated by the following data-points:
1. In 2015-16, TFIs annual budget is approximately 54 crores. The annual budget of the
Alumni team (including personnel costs) is approximately 45 lakhs (0.83 % of total
budget). This translates to a per-Fellow spend of around Rs 500,000 versus a per-
Alumnus spend of just over Rs 4,000 (whats more, this represents the largest budget
the Alumni team has ever had since TFI was founded in 2009).
2. In 2015-16, TFIs total staff strength is 180 while the total strength of the Alumni team is
13 (7.2%).
Just these two facts representing the current resource allocation should make it clear that
the status quo is insufficient and inadequate to make significant progress towards our vision
because the crux of TFIs model - its long-term theory of change (and the key to systemic
impact), currently receives a miniscule percentage of the overall budget and resources (and
hence priority) of the organization.

C.2

BARRIERS TO ENTRY IN THE LONG-TERM

Part of the reason (and justification) for this skewed resource allocation in Phase 1 and 2 is
the need to define and strengthen the Fellowship since the Fellowship (and our impact on
students in the short-term) represents the starting point for everything that follows. However,
we believe there is a hidden assumption underlying this choice which, given the historical
translation of TFIs theory of change from a very different context, that of Teach For America
(TFA) in the US, might shed further light on the issue and is worth attending to since it has
direct implications for our theory of change.
The assumption in question is that the 2-year Fellowship, by itself, will build the necessary
knowledge, skill, and commitment in Fellows to enable them to become lifelong leaders

working towards the cause of education equity in India1. This belief lies at the heart of Teach
For Americas theory of change and might explain the organizations intense focus on the two
year corps during a major part of its 25 years of existence and the relatively recent emphasis on
supporting and accelerating the development of its 37,000-strong Alumni community. Whats
more, this assumption might actually be valid in an education ecosystem like the US where
there are numerous opportunities to make a viable lifelong career in the public, private, and
nonprofit sectors in numerous organizations at every level of the system and where entry
barriers to specific career pathways (for example, in teaching, in school leadership, or in roles in
local, state, and national governments) are not as numerous and high as in a maturing
education ecosystem like in India where there are multiple entry barriers to key education
pathways such as teaching, school leadership, teacher-training, and the government
bureaucracy, and where the salary structures and growth trajectories make it difficult for
Fellows to make a viable and sustainable career in. The evidence that suggests this might be the
case comes from a few different sources:
1. While the overall percentage of TFA and TFI Alumni working full-time in education is not
very different (between 60-65% for both organizations), the split by role/pathway in
education is striking in its contrast (TFA, 2015).
a. TFAs Alumni network includes approximately 11,000 teachers (30% of all
Alumni), nearly half of whom (48%) work in district public schools as government
teachers. On the other hand, TFIs 1050-strong Alumni network includes
approximately 70 teachers (6.7%), not a single one of whom works in a
government school (almost all our Alumni teachers work either in high-fee
private schools or schools run by nonprofit organizations, some of which have a
partnership with the government).
b. TFAs Alumni network includes approximately 250 school-system leaders (these
are individuals who serve as superintendents of entire public school districts). In
contrast, not a single TFI Alumnus is currently in such a position of leadership or
even on track to attaining such a position (the equivalent in India would be the
role of an Education Officer in a local municipal government).
c. TFAs Alumni network includes 90 elected public officials while at TFI, there are
none (there are a tiny set of TFI Alumni with political aspirations but they are the
first to confess that the odds of success are uncertain or low given the high
barriers and negative stigma associated with politics).
d. The vast majority of TFI Alumni working in education (>70%) do so through
nonprofit organizations; currently not a single Alumnus works directly as part of
the government school system in India.
2. In internal surveys of Fellows that gauge their post-Fellowship aspirations, a majority of
Fellows over the years have indicated a preference for roles in the private sector
through the CSR divisions of corporate organizations. When probed on the underlying

1

The emphasis on lifelong leadership is justified because any kind of significant change in Indias education
system will require lengthy and sustained engagement on the part of all stakeholders and it will most likely take
decades for concrete results to emerge.

reasons for this preference, many speak passionately of their desire to work full-time
directly in the education system but mention barriers of compensation, career growth,
and location as being high which pushes them to choose a career that provides the
best of both worlds (based on informal conversations with the authors).

Given the importance of a public school system in providing equitable access to education
to children from all backgrounds, there is a need for our Alumni to work within the education
system in order to change it. And yet, the pieces of evidence above all seem to point in one
direction - that the education systems in India and the ecosystems supporting them are not in
the same state of maturity as in the US, that the entry barriers to key roles and pathways in
education are high, that incentives to make a long-term career are low, and that a laser-like
focus on the short-term theory of change might not actually yield the desired systemic impact
TFI seeks to achieve in the long-term. Thus, active and sustained intervention might be needed
on the part of the organization to create enabling systemic conditions for our long-term theory
of change to be realized in full force, an additional factor that necessitates a strategic-planning
exercise to define what those conditions actually might be.

C.3

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF OUR COMMUNITY

Last but not least, the push for renewed strategic clarity comes from the collective voices
and aspirations of our community itself, in the form of their responses to an open-ended survey
that was rolled out in June, 2015. This survey asked respondents to share (among other things)
how they believed TFI could have the greatest possible impact going forward and what the
focus areas in Phase 3 could look like. Of the approximately 1750 members who were eligible to
take the survey, 434 individuals (~ 25%) participated and the analysis of their responses threw
up a number of trends and competing tensions related to our current theory of change which
are briefly summarized below in the form of questions and choices:
1. Fellow Recruitment and Training:
- How might we make the Fellowship more inclusive? Should we continue recruiting
Fellows from our current pool of highly reputed colleges and workplaces or should we
broaden the pool (in terms of bringing in non-English speaking Fellows for example)?
- How might we find the right balance between teaching and leadership in terms of our
support to Fellows? What long-term leadership competencies do we need to build in
Fellows in order to accelerate their impact as Alumni?
- How might we increase the level of accountability of Fellows to classroom and school-
level outcomes as well as basic professional expectations?
- Should we prepare Fellows for specific pathways in education such as teaching,
curriculum development, school leadership, or research and advocacy? Or should we
focus on a basic set of general leadership competencies?
- Are there alternative Fellowship models we can explore? For example, can we have a
Fellowship for existing government school teachers or a 3rd year Fellowship for those

interested in school leadership?

2. Student Impact:
- How might we create enduring impact on the lives of our children during their time at
TFI and beyond? How might we leverage the impact of multiple Fellows on the same set
of students through a focus on the relay from one Fellow to the next?
- How might we root our curriculum and pedagogy in contextual research and expertise?
Should we make our curriculum more holistic in terms of a focus on physical education,
sports, arts, drama, etc.? Or should we continue focusing mainly on Math and English?
- Should we continue focusing on English as the primary medium of instruction or should
we include additional mediums of instruction?
- What is our unit of intended impact? Is it the classroom, the school, or the community?
- How might we measure and communicate our student impact in a more meaningful
way?

3. Alumni Impact:
- How might we directly support individual Alumni to amplify their impact on the
education system?
- How might we leverage the Alumni network to have collective impact on the education
system?
- How might we reduce or eliminate entry barriers to key pathways in education like
teaching, school leadership, and the education bureaucracy? How might we make
careers in these pathways more viable and attractive for Alumni?
- How might we enable Alumni to catalyze a broader movement for education equity in
India that includes citizens from all backgrounds?

4. Organizational Growth and Culture:
- How might we foster an organizational culture that enables us to make significant
progress towards our vision? Would that culture look different for running a Fellowship
program versus catalyzing a movement of individuals outside our direct locus of
control?
- How might we ensure individual and collective accountability of staff members to
organization-wide goals?
- How might we improve the efficiency of our operational processes and systems?
- What should our expansion strategy look like? Should we restrict ourselves to urban
areas or expand to rural areas as well?
- How might we ensure a sustainable base of funding to support the growth of the
organization?
- Should we play a direct role in catalyzing systemic change (for example, through in-
house research and advocacy efforts or partnerships with local and state governments)?
Or should we work primarily through our Fellows, Staff, and Alumni?
- How might we recruit the best possible talent to fill our staff teams? How might we
select and develop staff members so as to maximize their impact and allow them to be
excellent in their roles?

In light of these fundamental questions raised by members of our community and the
mandate to make certain key choices regarding our theory of change, it is necessary to embark
on a strategic-planning exercise that will do one of two things - either resolve some of the main
tensions present today or provide clarity on the right balance between them.

IV.

LOOKING AHEAD: WHY NOW?

The previous sections have outlined in some detail the realities, external pressures, and
internal tensions of the status quo at Teach For India and the need to enter a planning process
that gives the organization greater strategic clarity regarding its impact on the system. The
reason we wish to kick-start this process now (in August, 2015) is three-fold:

1. Phase 2 Goals - TFIs Leadership team and Board have identified (and approved) a set of
priorities and associated metrics that will determine the organizations success in Phase
2 and that all teams will hold themselves accountable to. These priorities include Fellow
development and student impact, a culture of internal collaboration, a focus on staffing
and retention, and experimenting with systemic impact. Together, these priorities
represent a broad focus on deepening our short-term impact, strengthening the internal
core of the organization, and experimenting with the external system. The projected
timeframe for the organization to achieve these targets is 3 years (2014-2017) and the
result of achieving these targets is a strong and robust organization with demonstrated
impact in the short-term and the wisdom and capability to start to drive impact the
long-term; which then makes it an appropriate time for the commencement of the next
phase of the journey.

2. The Voices of our Community - The first 7 years at TFI have demonstrated the immense
value and importance of engaging our community in a variety of ways, whether this
includes our students, their parents, our school principals, teachers, government
officials, donors, partners, experts, and employers, to name a few. To us, engaging our
community means understanding them deeply, empathizing with their challenges,
listening to their aspirations as well as their concerns, involving them in our work,
leveraging their contributions, seeking their advice, incorporating their feedback, and
empowering them to make change themselves. We now wish to engage our community
in defining and envisioning the future of the organization itself and so have chosen to
use design-thinking as the guiding framework for the Phase 3 strategic-planning
process which will, by its very nature, involve extensive conversations and consultations,
discussions and debates with our community, with the sole purpose of understanding
how we can have the greatest possible impact in our next phase. Given the wicked
nature of the problem, the wide range of stakeholders, and the desire to incorporate as
many diverse voices as possible, we wish to move patiently through this process, to not
make any hurried decisions, and to go far and hence go together. Consequently, we plan

to kick-off the Phase 3 strategic-planning exercise in August, 2015, to give us enough

time for the process (12-15 months) and to build greater ownership and investment
amongst all our stakeholders.

3. A New Direction for Education India is at a major cross-roads in its history, with the
current Union Government announcing a plan to introduce a new National Education
Policy for the entire country in 2016 that will set forth a new vision and direction for
both school education and higher education that will have implications for the character
of Indian schools and universities for decades to come (Behar, 2015). The Government
has identified a set of 33 key themes in education to mobilize the conversation around
(13 themes for school education and 20 themes for higher education) and has already
kick-started an extensive, year-long consultation process inviting participation from
education stakeholders and citizens from across the nation. The framing of this new
education policy and the desire to generate conversations and discussions among
diverse stakeholders provides a perfect backdrop for TFI to take advantage of and
embark on its own vision and consultation process to identify what role it can play in the
governments larger vision for education.

V.

LOOKING AHEAD: WHY YOU?

We began this note with a question, How might Teach For India make significant
progress towards its Vision while staying true to the core of its Mission? and we have
argued that the Phase 3 process will provide some important answers in this direction.
However, the truth is that the answers to these big questions lie not in some objective
reality or strategic-plan but in the values and beliefs, dreams and aspirations, and words
and actions, of each and every single one of our community members, which includes you.
We therefore invite you to join us on this journey to gain clarity on the fundamental
purpose of Teach For India and hope you will play an active role. We look forward to your
involvement and participation. Thank you.

VI.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Susan Colby, N. S. (2004). Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/zeroing_in_on_impact
Report, D. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.dise.in/Downloads/Publications/Documents/U-DISE-
SchoolEducationInIndia-2013-14.pdf
Sahlberg, P. (2012). Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?
Blackstone Audio.
Mona Mourshed, C. C. (2010). How the worlds most improved school systems keep getting better.
McKinsey.
Horst Rittel, M. W. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences , 155-169.
Camillus, J. C. (2008, May). Strategy as a Wicked Problem. Harvard Business Review .
TFA. (2015, February). Teach For America. Retrieved from https://www.teachforamerica.org/about-
us/our-mission/our-impact
Behar, A. (2015, May 13). Live Mint. Retrieved from
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/5BlhvpXRZs8CRELt1FcS7M/A-new-education-policy.html