The study was not designed to undertake an evaluation of the success or failure of reform. Nor was it specifically about the desirability or defects of the policy reform choices. It took these reform choices and the policy context as a given. It is important to note that the Delhi reforms had its share of criticisms (Kumar, 2016; Rampal, 2016). However, our goal was not to comment on whether these were the “right” reforms or have their appropriateness measured in terms of their technical capability. This study sought to understand the pathways through which policy formulations, designed and promoted by committed leaders (the sound and functional head of the flailing state), transmit their ideas and how these are understood, resisted, and adopted on the ground. In essence, this is a study that sought to illuminate the multifaceted challenges of introducing change and transition in low-capacity settings. Its focus was on documenting the process of implementing reforms and the dynamics of resistance, distortion, and acceptance of reform efforts on the ground. The provocative claim that this report makes is that the success and failure, and eventual institutionalisation, of reforms depend fundamentally on how the frontline of the system understands, interprets, and adapts to reform efforts. This, we shall argue, holds the key to upending the status quo of “pilot” burial grounds that characterise many education reform efforts in India. Reforms are never implemented in a vacuum. They inevitably intersect with the belief systems, cultures, values, and norms that shape the education ecosystem. The dynamics of this interaction, the frictions it creates, and reformers’ ability to negotiate these frictions are what ultimately shape outcomes. In the ultimate analysis, we argue that reforming deeply entrenched education systems (and, more broadly, public service delivery systems) is not merely a matter of political will and technical solutions (although both are critical). It is about identifying the points of reform friction in the ecosystem and experimenting with different ways of negotiating these. The narrative presented here does not have any clear answers for what needs to be done right. Instead, it seeks to make visible the intricacies and potential levers of change that tend to be ignored in the rush to “evaluate” reforms and declare success and failure. Moving beyond success to understand the dynamics of change and resistance is the primary contribution of this study.
