To be precise, China had 4.41 lakh schools in 2025, with 28.04 crore students and 1.87 crore full-time teachers, according to its Ministry of Education. 

And India? It had 14.71 lakh schools in 2024-25, with 24.69 crore students and 1.01 crore teachers, according to the Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE) Plus data. 

Why compare the Dragon with the Elephant?

Much has been written about India’s shrinking school network, and how it is merging and rationalising schools with low enrolment. But here’s what many don’t know.  

China went through a similar, and much larger, consolidation of its rural school system. 

But while China reduced the number of schools, it also addressed the problems that followed, including longer travel distances and boarding issues. 

It also invested heavily in schools. 

China’s spending on education crossed US$ 145 billion in the first quarter of FY2026-27 alone, while India has allocated just one-ninth of that - around US$ 15.7 billion - to the Ministry of Education for the entire fiscal.   

In terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in 2024 India allocated about 4.1% towards education, and China 4.02%. While the figures look surprisingly similar, it is important to note that China has a much larger economy than India. 

The Asian neighbour’s experience offers a useful comparison for India: consolidation can improve the use of teachers and infrastructure, but only if access and capacity are protected.

A Rapid Decline In India

The rapid decline in India’s school network is in focus, with a NITI Aayog report on the closure of 94,000 government schools in the last decade making headlines for days. 

The total number of schools peaked at 15.58 lakh in 2017-18 before falling to 14.71 lakh in 2024-25. Government schools declined from 11.07 lakh in 2014-15 to 10.13 lakh in 2024-25.

A ‘School Theek Karo’ – or ‘Set The Schools Right’ - campaign is on right now, urging citizens and volunteers to inspect government schools and document basic infrastructure, classroom conditions, drinking water, toilets, furniture, and midday meal facilities. 

The campaign has highlighted the state of schools in Rajasthan, Punjab, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, including the National Capital Region of Noida.

The distribution of teachers is also an issue in India. According to UDISE Plus, in over 1 lakh schools, accounting for over 33 lakh students, there is only a single teacher!

The debate over school conditions is also playing out on the ground. 

According to NITI Aayog, “The decline in the number of schools does not necessarily indicate reduced access. It reflects the consolidation of schooling infrastructure, including the rationalisation and merger of under-enrolled schools...”

But educationist Charu Malhotra, Co-Founder and Managing Director, Primus Partners India, said, “Low enrolment should trigger an assessment, not automatically a closure.” 

“The objective of rationalisation should not be fewer schools; it should be better education without making that education harder or more expensive for a child to reach,” Malhotra told The Secretariat.

What China Did Right – And Different 

A significant merger wave was seen in China as well. The number of primary schools dropped from 4.91 lakh in 2001 to approximately 2.57 lakh in 2010, most of which were in rural areas.

So how did China make school consolidation work?

Its policy was to send younger children (Grades 1-3) to local schools rather than to boarding. 

Low enrolment should trigger an assessment, not automatically a closure

- Charu Malhotra, Co-Founder and Managing Director, Primus Partners India

It also stipulated that schools or teaching points must stay in underpopulated and remote areas where closure would make it difficult for children to visit. The smaller teaching points enable children in remote areas to stay near home and be supported academically by larger schools. In 2025, China had 42,300 primary teaching points and 1.28 lakh regular primary schools. 

Transport was also included as an element of school access. 

The country included travel time and safety in its policy framework and planned transport support where public transport was not available when considering mergers. The receiving schools were expected to have sufficient accommodation and meals before admitting extra students.

“Mergers are not good or bad on their own. They are a tool, and like any tool, the outcome depends entirely on how carefully it is used,” said Gayathri Vasudevan, Founder and Chairperson, Sambhav Foundation.

Digital tools were also utilised to enable children to be taught from remote teaching points in the country and to access quality teaching resources and support from larger central schools.

Mergers are not good or bad on their own. They are a tool, and like any tool, the outcome depends entirely on how carefully it is used

- Gayathri Vasudevan, Founder and Chairperson, Sambhav Foundation

The challenge for India is to make sure that rationalisation does not become an access problem.

The existence of 1 lakh single-teacher schools indicates that resource inequalities remain. Merging schools could enable better utilisation of teachers if there are extra teachers, classrooms, and basic facilities that can accommodate the added students at receiving schools.

But the absence of a school can leave a child with a much longer distance to travel.

“For a family already weighing whether the daily effort of school is worth it, an extra few kilometres is not a minor inconvenience. It can be the difference between a child attending regularly and a child gradually dropping off,” said economist Mitali Nikore.

The broader education indicators also depict the gap that India is attempting to bridge. 

According to UNDP's 2025 Human Development Report, India's Human Development Index (HDI) in 2023 was 0.685, whereas China was at a higher 0.797. A higher HDI indicates a higher level of social and economic well-being in a country based on health, education, and standard of living.

For a family already weighing whether the daily effort of school is worth it, an extra few kilometres is not a minor inconvenience. It can be the difference between a child attending regularly and a child gradually dropping off

- Mitali Nikore, an economist

The report also points out that the mean years of schooling for China was 8 years, compared to India's 6.9 years.

Change Can Be Slow

India also faces a structural constraint that China did not face to the same extent. 

Former Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia told The Secretariat, “Because of our democratic structure, change takes place slowly. That is a cost. I mean, the Chinese actually do not have our constraints because they don't have to worry about what the electorate thinks.”

India can't copy the governance model of China. But it can certainly learn from how China went about its school consolidation exercise.

Because of our democratic structure, change takes place slowly. That is a cost. I mean, the Chinese actually do not have our constraints because they don't have to worry about what the electorate thinks

- Montek Singh Ahluwalia, former Deputy Chairman of the erstwhile Planning Commission 

The test for India should not be just the number of schools. It should be whether consolidation provides better teachers, improved infrastructure, and a cheerful path to school.