Tamil Nadu’s Mozhigal scheme was designed to improve spoken English among students in Classes VI to VIII through games, video modules and frequently asked questions. Three years after its launch, however, the programme’s difficulties point to a problem larger than an inactive classroom exercise: digital education cannot function when equipment, timetables and administrative follow-up are treated as separate concerns.
The scheme, spearheaded by the Tamil Nadu State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT), gives government-school students access to a technology-supported learning model. Teachers log into the portal through their EMIS credentials and use computer laboratories in schools to conduct lessons. The programme’s stated design therefore depends on several linked systems working together: the portal must remain current, laboratories must be usable, schools must allocate time and teachers must receive institutional support to conduct the classes.
The account from schools indicates that this chain has weakened. School heads told The Times of India that dedicated periods were available during the first two years of the programme, when students and teachers were engaged with the subject. Over the past year, the classes have reportedly lost their allocated period and are instead being conducted during hi-tech laboratory sessions. Those sessions are also used for other activities and assignments, leaving spoken English without a reliable place in the school timetable.
This is not simply a question of whether a portal remains technically online. A digital education programme can be formally active while being functionally absent from students’ school experience. If there is no protected class period, access to a computer does not automatically translate into instruction. The difference between availability and use is where many technology-led public programmes are tested, and Mozhigal’s reported decline illustrates that distinction at school level.
## The infrastructure problem behind a language programme
The second weakness concerns the physical infrastructure required to operate the scheme. Teachers said several hi-tech laboratory systems became non-functional after L&T’s maintenance contract ended last year. They reported connectivity problems and an inadequate number of uninterruptible power supply units. They also said several students often have to share a single computer, making it difficult to learn effectively.
These are basic operational constraints, but they have a direct bearing on programme outcomes. Spoken English learning through games and video modules requires students to interact with content, listen, respond and practise. When connectivity is unreliable, power protection is insufficient or computers are shared by too many students, the programme’s intended learning experience is reduced. The issue is not whether a school has a laboratory on paper; it is whether students can use the available equipment with enough regularity and access to make the lessons meaningful.
The reported end of a maintenance contract also raises an institutional question. The launch of a technology programme is visible and measurable: equipment can be installed, a portal can be opened and lessons can be announced. Maintenance is less visible but determines whether the system continues to work. Once a service arrangement ends, responsibility for repairs, connectivity and replacement equipment must be clear. The information supplied in the report does not establish what post-contract maintenance system was put in place, but the teachers’ accounts suggest that the transition has left gaps.
For schools, even small infrastructure failures can become programme-wide barriers. A faulty computer, an unreliable connection or a missing UPS may not shut down an entire laboratory permanently. It can nevertheless make a class slow, fragmented and difficult to manage. When a subject already lacks a dedicated timetable slot, such interruptions make it easier for schools to use the period for another activity.
## A timetable is also an implementation decision
Mozhigal’s reported loss of dedicated class time shows that implementation is shaped not only by policy documents and digital platforms but also by the daily timetable. During the first two years, the programme had dedicated periods, according to a headmaster quoted in the report. In the past year, it has reportedly been accommodated within the hi-tech laboratory period, alongside other activities and assignments.
That change alters the status of the subject. A protected period signals that the department expects the school to deliver the programme regularly. A shared laboratory session makes delivery conditional on competing demands. The distinction matters particularly in government schools, where the same space and equipment may serve several instructional and administrative purposes.
The report does not provide a statewide timetable audit or attendance data for Mozhigal classes. It therefore cannot establish how many schools have stopped conducting lessons or how frequently classes are held across Tamil Nadu. It does, however, identify a recurring implementation pattern through the accounts of school heads and teachers: when a programme is not embedded in routine school scheduling, its delivery becomes vulnerable to other priorities.
Teachers have also called for spoken English to be made compulsory and for students to be graded in the subject, at least through internal assessments. These demands reveal how assessment affects institutional attention. A subject that is not evaluated may find it harder to compete for classroom time, even if it has been introduced as a state-level priority. The proposal from teachers is not evidence that a grading framework has been approved; it is a suggestion aimed at giving the programme greater administrative weight.
## Portal activity is not the same as programme performance
A further concern is the reported lack of new material on the Mozhigal portal. An SCERT faculty member told the newspaper that new modules had not been uploaded and that chief educational officers and district educational officers had not raised the issue. The faculty member said there were plans to make the window more interactive, but that no update had taken place.
This creates a second gap between a programme’s formal existence and its operational performance. The portal remains active, according to the report, but teachers say the content has not been refreshed. A platform can therefore continue to be accessible while losing relevance to schools and students. Digital learning systems require not only hosting and login access but also content management, technical support and a mechanism for identifying problems reported from the field.
The reference to district and chief educational officers is important because it points to the monitoring structure around the scheme. SCERT may design or oversee the academic component, while schools and education officers influence daily implementation. If field-level problems are not escalated, the central institution may receive an incomplete picture of what is happening in laboratories. The report says the officers had not raised the issue; it does not establish why, or whether formal monitoring reports exist.
The non-response from SCERT director N Latha to queries leaves some operational questions unanswered. The supplied report does not include an official explanation for the maintenance gap, the absence of dedicated periods, the portal’s lack of new modules or the proposed timeline for improvements. Those unresolved questions are part of the story because implementation responsibility cannot be assessed fully without the department’s account.
## The governance challenge is larger than one portal
Mozhigal’s experience shows that school technology programmes are governed through multiple decisions rather than a single launch order. The academic content, laboratory maintenance, school timetable, teacher participation, district monitoring and student assessment each influence whether the programme reaches its intended users.
The weakness of one link can undermine the others. If the equipment is unreliable, teachers may not be able to conduct lessons. If lessons do not have a fixed period, the equipment may be used irregularly. If there is no assessment, the subject may receive less attention. If district officers do not report implementation problems, the portal and programme design may not be updated in response to field conditions.
This makes accountability difficult unless responsibilities are clearly assigned. A school may be expected to conduct classes but lack functioning systems. A teacher may be willing to teach but have no dedicated period. A district officer may be responsible for monitoring but receive no effective reporting mechanism. The supplied material does not identify the formal allocation of these duties, but the reported failures demonstrate why such allocation matters.
The programme also raises a question about how digital inclusion is measured. Counting the number of laboratories or portals does not show whether students receive regular learning time. The more meaningful indicators would relate to actual use: whether classes are held, whether equipment is functional, whether students can access computers individually or in manageable groups, whether content is updated and whether schools report problems through an active monitoring system. No such statewide performance data is provided in the report.
## What the evidence confirms—and what it does not
The available evidence confirms that school heads and teachers have reported reduced classroom time, laboratory maintenance problems, connectivity issues, inadequate UPS capacity, shared computers and a lack of recent portal updates. It also records calls from teachers for compulsory spoken English, internal assessment and regular inspections by block education officers.
The evidence does not establish the total number of affected schools, the proportion of laboratories that are non-functional, the amount spent on the scheme, the duration of the maintenance contract or the outcome of any departmental review. It also does not show whether SCERT has formally decided to restore dedicated class periods or upload new modules. These gaps prevent a full assessment of the programme’s statewide performance.
The immediate institutional test is therefore not merely whether Mozhigal remains available online. It is whether the education system can restore the conditions that make the programme usable: functioning laboratories, reliable connectivity and power support, protected teaching time, updated learning content and regular monitoring. Until those elements are aligned, the scheme risks remaining a programme that exists in policy and on a portal but is inconsistently experienced in classrooms.
The next developments to watch are any response from SCERT, the status of the hi-tech laboratory maintenance arrangement, the promised portal update and evidence of renewed monitoring by education officers. Those details will determine whether Mozhigal is being repaired as a functioning school programme or simply retained as a digital resource that schools are expected to use without the operational support required.