When we walk into most Indian classrooms today, we are stepping into a time warp: children of a digital, AI-infused world are being prepared with a curriculum designed for a different economy, a different society, and a different set of jobs. That quiet mismatch the curriculum lag is perhaps the single biggest risk to India’s demographic dividend.

On paper, India’s school system is enormous and ambitious. It serves around 24.8 crore students, with steady expansion of infrastructure, digital platforms, and flagship reforms aligned to NEP 2020. Government reviews list thousands of upgraded schools, ICT labs, Atal Tinkering Labs, PM SHRI exemplar schools, and national missions on foundational literacy. Yet the lived experience in an average classroom still revolves around chalk-and-talk lectures, board exams that reward memorisation, and textbooks that treat digital skills as optional add-ons rather than core literacy.

ASER 2024 shows slow but real recovery in basic reading and arithmetic post-pandemic, but also highlights that a majority of Class 3 children still cannot read a Class 2 text or perform simple arithmetic. When such a large share of students is struggling with foundational skills, the system becomes risk-averse: boards hesitate to overload curricula with “new” content like coding or AI, teachers feel underprepared, and digital literacy is pushed off to the margins as a “nice-to-have”.

The result is a paradox: while teenagers across India use smartphones, social media, and video content daily, only a fraction are systematically taught how to search, discern, create, and compute in ways that map to tomorrow’s jobs.

Across sectors, employers are no longer hiring for static knowledge but for adaptive capabilities problem solving, computational thinking, data literacy, collaboration, and creativity mediated through technology. Yet most school curricula still channel students towards a narrow definition of “achievement”: high-stakes exam scores in a few subjects, with the “right” answers fixed in the back of the book.

Three critical skill clusters expose this lag most starkly.

Digital literacy today is as fundamental as reading and writing. It includes the ability to:

NEP 2020 recognises digital literacy as a foundational skill for all learners and calls for integration of technology into teaching and learning, expansion of platforms like DIKSHA and SWAYAM, and virtual labs. However, research on digital literacy in India points to deep structural constraints: low device ownership, patchy connectivity, and pronounced gender and rural–urban gaps in access and skills.

Only around 4.4% of rural households and 23.4% of urban households own computers, and smartphone and 4G penetration remains uneven, particularly in rural areas. Even where devices exist, NSSO data and micro‑studies show that women and girls are significantly less likely to operate computers or use the internet compared to men and boys. In such contexts, schools could have become powerful levellers by guaranteeing meaningful digital exposure to every child but that requires digital literacy to be embedded in the core curriculum, not relegated to a single computer period in a lab that may or may not function.

Government data show that the percentage of schools with computers has increased from 38.5% in 2019–20 to 57.2% in 2023–24, and over 1.3 lakh schools are covered under ICT and digital initiatives. Yet infrastructure is only the outer shell; in many schools, computers remain locked to “save them”, connectivity is intermittent, and teachers are not adequately trained to integrate digital tools into everyday pedagogy.

The job market that awaits today’s Class 6 student is saturated with software-everywhere: logistics, agriculture, healthcare, education, retail, and even small businesses are being reshaped by automation and algorithms. In that world, coding is not merely a specialised vocation; it is a new language for expressing ideas, designing solutions, and collaborating with machines.

CBSE introduced computer science and Informatics Practices as elective subjects over a decade ago, and initiatives like Atal Tinkering Labs have promoted hands-on robotics and programming experiences in thousands of schools. Central schools such as Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalayas now offer computer science or information practices at the secondary level, and AI curricula are being rolled out from Class VI onwards in many such schools.

However, these developments largely touch islands of relative privilege. In practice:

Where coding clubs or robotics programs exist, they often operate as fee-based extracurriculars, pushing lower-income students to the margins of the future of work. This creates a two‑speed system: one subset of students is learning to build and control technology; another is being prepared only to consume it.

If coding is the language of automation, AI readiness is the grammar of living with intelligent systems. AI readiness spans:

Policy momentum is building. Curricula on AI and computational thinking are planned from Class 3 in alignment with NEP 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023, with national announcements of AI and CT integration from 2026–27. CBSE has AI as a skill subject from middle school upwards, and some central school systems implement AI curricula beginning in Class VI.

Yet the gap between announcement and classroom reality is wide. Surveys suggest that only about 15% of educators are AI‑fluent, with government schools serving roughly 70% of enrolments facing the steepest readiness challenge. Teacher education programs are only beginning to incorporate AI concepts, and school timetables are already densely packed, leaving little room for new cross‑cutting content.

Absent intentional design, AI education risks becoming either a shallow buzzword unit or an elite offering where only a minority of students truly engage in projects, datasets, and ethical discussions.

NEP 2020 is, on paper, one of the most forward‑looking policy documents Indian school education has seen in decades. It calls for:

Implementation updates show momentum: national missions like NIPUN Bharat, the creation of PARAKH for assessment reform, APAAR IDs for tracking learning, PM SHRI schools as NEP exemplars, and a large-scale expansion of digital platforms and content. Textbooks for the foundational and middle stages are being re-written with competency‑based and interdisciplinary orientation, and skill education is formally recognised in many upper grades.

Yet, when we zoom in on digital literacy, coding, and AI readiness, several gaps emerge.

NEP 2020 acknowledges digital learning and calls for using TV, radio, and community radio to supplement online education, especially for disadvantaged groups. But policy commentary notes that NEP is relatively silent on:

Research synthesising digital literacy and NEP 2020 concludes that while technological initiatives are ambitious, they often assume a baseline of access and teacher readiness that does not exist in many parts of the country. Without targeted investments in last‑mile connectivity, shared community devices, accessible content, and protective frameworks, digital learning risks amplifying existing inequities.

Teacher competence and comfort with technology are repeatedly highlighted as key determinants of successful NEP implementation. The government has launched integrated teacher education programmes, national mentoring missions, and professional standards for teachers, including guidelines and bluebooks in Braille and audio. There is also widespread deployment of NISHTHA and other online training modules for digital pedagogy and competency-based teaching.

However, AI and coding-specific readiness is still embryonic. Surveys in 2025 suggest that only a small minority of educators describe themselves as fluent with AI tools, and that many attend one‑off workshops without ongoing coaching or peer support. For a teacher who is juggling large class sizes, administrative compliance, and pressure for board exam results, experimental AI or coding activities can feel like a risky luxury.

Teachers in low‑resource schools often report:

India’s school system is deeply decentralised. While NEP and national frameworks set the direction, states drive implementation, and boards control examinations. Early AI or coding initiatives are often concentrated in:

UDISE+ data shows growing ICT coverage and vocational education, but not yet a universal baseline where every child is guaranteed consistent exposure to digital literacy, coding, and AI concepts across grades. In many state board schools, digital skills appear as a slim, often outdated chapter in textbooks, and practical exposure depends on local headteacher initiative or NGO partnerships.

PARAKH and the National Curriculum Framework are working towards equivalence in curricula and assessment across boards, but assessment reform which could drive real change in classroom practice is still in early phases, with national surveys and conceptualisation of holistic progress cards underway.

To move beyond policy and data, we need to listen to those who inhabit schools every day. In my conversations for this series with principals, teachers, and students across government and low- to middle-fee private schools in Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Delhi, three themes recur.

School leaders almost universally express a desire to prepare students for a digital future, but they operate within hard constraints of budgets, staff, and accountability metrics.

One principal of a government higher primary school in rural Karnataka describes her reality like this: “We have a computer room with ten desktops that came three years ago, but electricity is erratic and there is no internet most days. The timetable gives one period a week for computers, yet sometimes we convert it into extra math because the pressure for basic learning outcomes is very high.”

Her decision is rational in a system where her performance is judged primarily on textbook coverage and board results, not on whether her students can write a simple program or critically evaluate information online.

In contrast, a head of a mid-sized private school in Pune speaks of piloting an AI awareness module in middle school: “We start with asking students where they see AI YouTube recommendations, maps, filters and then discuss ethics and bias through stories. We don’t rush into coding AI models; we focus first on mindset.” He admits, however, that this pilot was possible only because interested parents agreed to higher fees, and because the school could allocate time outside the mandated board syllabus.

These two voices reveal the emerging fault line: leadership vision matters, but without system-wide alignment of assessments, budgets, and teacher development, AI readiness will remain uneven.

Many teachers I spoke to are quietly reimagining their role from content deliverers to learning designers even when their official job description has not caught up.

A math teacher in a semi-urban government secondary school in Maharashtra describes an experiment that began during the pandemic: “When we were forced into WhatsApp teaching, I realised my students were very good at finding videos, sharing memes, and teaching each other things I had not explained. After schools reopened, I started giving them small ‘design tasks’ like creating a two‑minute audio explaining a concept, or finding three different ways a concept is used in daily life. Suddenly the classroom energy changed.”

She now dreams of integrating basic coding into these tasks using block-based tools to simulate interest growth, population changes, or simple patterns but laments the lack of structured curriculum support and dedicated time.

Technology-focused research under NEP 2020 underscores her insight: genuine digital literacy is less about separate computer periods and more about weaving digital tools into subject pedagogy, enabling students to explore, simulate, create, and reflect. This requires teachers to adopt design principles, choice, iteration, feedback, authenticity in daily lesson planning, not just in “special projects”.

Students themselves are, unsurprisingly, the most enthusiastic about digital, coding, and AI-related experiences. ASER 2024 reports that around 89% of 14–16‑year‑olds have access to smartphones, 87% can find videos online, and over 92% can share them, indicating strong informal digital participation.

Yet this comfort does not automatically translate into deep digital literacy:

One Class 9 student I spoke to in Bengaluru put it poignantly: “We are using AI to finish homework faster. But no one in school is really talking about what AI is doing to us.”

Where schools do provide structured experiences like student-led digital projects, coding clubs, or interdisciplinary AI problem-solving students describe feeling “seen” and “excited”, especially those who otherwise struggle in traditional academic tracks.

Across India, some schools are already living the future many policy documents envision. While I avoid naming specific brands, we can examine patterns emerging from different categories of institutions.

In a district in southern India, a government upper primary school that was selected as a PM SHRI exemplar chose to “start small, but deep” rather than chasing every shiny technology.

Working with district resource persons and state-supported digital platforms, teachers co‑designed a theme-based unit for Class 7 around “Water in Our Lives”:

The school had limited hardware: one projector, a few tablets rotated between classes but by following design principles of authenticity, student choice, iterative creation, and public sharing, they turned digital literacy from a discrete subject into an integrated experience. Teachers reported that students who usually stayed silent in class became animated when given roles such as “audio editor” or “data organiser”.

This case illustrates that even in resource-constrained settings, design-led integration of digital tools can make learning more engaging and meaningful.

A cluster of schools in western India participated in a structured AI curriculum pilot aligned with national skill subjects and state initiatives. Under this pilot:

Evaluation data from such pilots show high engagement from students, increased teacher confidence in facilitating discussion-based and project-based learning, and growing awareness about ethical and societal dimensions of AI among adolescents.

However, these pilots also reveal challenges:

The lesson is clear: introducing AI is not just about new content but about embracing new pedagogies and design principles.

At its core, curriculum reform is not only an economic project but a human one. The question is not merely “What skills will get our children jobs?” but “What kind of learning experiences will help them live fully, think deeply, and contribute meaningfully in an AI-shaped world?”

Design principles can act as bridges between yesterday’s curriculum structures and tomorrow’s learning needs.

Children understand the world through stories long before they encounter syllabi. The most powerful digital, coding, and AI curricula use storytelling as a spine, not a garnish.

Imagine:

Research on AI curriculum pilots emphasises storytelling, real-life connections, and adaptive engagement as central pillars that increase student motivation and deepen understanding. NEP‑aligned textbooks under development also highlight interdisciplinary and context-rich content, which can be a canvas for such narrative approaches.

When students are given genuine choices, topics, formats, tools their engagement transforms. Instead of assigning identical projects, teachers can design choice menus:

The same applies to AI readiness:

Designing such choice frameworks does not require fancy infrastructure; it requires a mindset that sees students as partners in learning, not passive recipients.

The most memorable learning experiences are those that matter beyond the exam hall. When digital tools, coding, and AI are tied to local problems, they begin to feel necessary rather than ornamental.

Examples include:

Such projects not only build digital and computational skills but also cultivate empathy, civic engagement, and a sense of agency qualities that no AI can easily automate.

One of the most frequent objections to integrating digital literacy, coding, and AI is cost of devices, connectivity, teacher training, and curriculum redesign. Yet when we look at the broader picture, the cost of not reforming may be far higher.

Government schemes such as Samagra Shiksha and PM SHRI already allocate funds for ICT labs, smart classrooms, Atal Tinkering Labs, and skill labs. The Year End Review lists over 1.38 lakh schools covered under ICT and digital initiatives and thousands of schools strengthened or upgraded. Extensions of DIKSHA and SWAYAM, and creation of digital repositories and virtual labs, are system-level investments whose marginal cost per learner decreases as usage scales.

What often remains underfunded is:

However, these are precisely the investments that unlock the full value of existing hardware and platforms. Directed strategically, even modest reallocations say, from pure hardware purchase to teacher coaching can dramatically improve learning returns.

The economic cost of a workforce under-prepared for digital and AI-intensive jobs is difficult to quantify precisely, but signals are visible:

Viewed against these risks, the benefits of aligning school curricula with 21st‑century skills extend beyond individual employability to national competitiveness and social cohesion.

Design-rich, engaging learning environments yield benefits that are harder to measure but deeply consequential:

In numerous case studies, schools that invested in interdisciplinary, project-based, and technology-integrated learning report higher attendance, better student–teacher relationships, and more collaborative staff culture even when exam scores were not the initial focus.

Because this article sits in a series, I see it as a bridge: connecting earlier reflections on joyful, design-led learning with a sharper focus on digital, coding, and AI readiness. Each stakeholder in this ecosystem has both agency and responsibility.

Invest in teacher design capacity. Encourage peer-led lesson design workshops where teachers co-create units that embed digital literacy and AI awareness into core topics.

Normalise conversations about AI. When using any digital tool search engines, translation apps, grammar checkers ask aloud: “What is the machine doing here? Where could it go wrong? Who is responsible?”

Align exams with skills. Allow boards to gradually weight project work, digital artefacts, and interdisciplinary tasks in assessment frameworks, so that schools feel justified in investing time away from rote test prep.

Co‑create with teachers. Avoid “parachute” interventions; instead, work in long-term partnership with schools, building capacity that remains after projects end.

The story of India’s curriculum lag is not a story of failure but of friction. The system is in motion: NEP 2020 has set a new compass, digital platforms are scaling, and early AI and coding initiatives are taking root. But the pace at which yesterday’s habits are being shed is slower than the pace at which tomorrow’s jobs are emerging.

As I look back across this series, a thread runs through every piece: when we design learning around curiosity, agency, and authentic problems, children come alive whether they are holding a pencil, a tablet, or a microcontroller. The joy of learning is not the opposite of rigour; it is its precondition.

The question before us is simple, and urgent: Will we confine that joy to a few privileged islands of innovation, or will we rewire our curricula so that every child in every classroom in India learns to read the world, write code, converse with AI, and, above all, design a future they want to live in?