A flawed fix?

If there is one thing that defines the Indian population, it is stratification. While egalitarianism and uniform society might be in the imagination of many, in reality, it is the differentials and inequalities that shape societies. Education, a major pillar of human growth, is afflicted by the same. The Union government’s recent decision to scrap the ‘no detention policy’ for Classes 5 and 8 in schools under its jurisdiction cannot be seen in isolation from this hard reality. On paper, this change affects schools like Kendriya Vidyalayas, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, Sainik Schools, and Eklavya Model Residential Schools. However, the notification will also open up the floodgates for other states—beyond those that have already scrapped ‘no detention policy’—to follow suit. These schools serve a wide variety of students—hailing from starkly different socio-economic statuses and possessing very different mental acumen. The fear of failure in exams or recurring detentions could disincentivise many students, particularly girls, from sticking to the course of their education. This is not meant to denounce the merit of the government’s decision to scrap the ‘no detention policy’. Time and again ASER reports have exposed the dismal state of foundational literacy and numeracy in school-going children. There is a clear lapse in learning levels, particularly in public schools. In large parts of rural India, and to a significant extent in urban areas as well, the learning process of students is driven by an exam-centric approach. Exempt from the fear of being detained, they have a natural tendency to take their studies lightly unless they reach class 10th. By the time they reach there, a lot many students are left beyond repair.

Perhaps the government appears to be wanting to bridge this gap. However, in doing so, it should not skip two considerations. In the first place, it should remember that tightening the grip on pre-board examinations might not be the best bet to plug the gap in student’s learning because, in a way, it signals a retreat to the same pressure building approach that the Right to Education Act intended to do away with. It is like spinning the wheel backwards. The second consideration is closely related to the first one and has a problem-solution relation. The best alternative to bridge the learning gap is to make education more engaging, interactive and interesting, rather than instilling the fear of examination. It may be recalled that the no-detention policy, introduced under the Right to Education (RTE) Act of 2009, aimed to reduce dropout rates by ensuring no child was held back or expelled until they completed elementary education. By removing the fear of failure, it sought to make learning enjoyable. This idea should not be forgotten. The new rules now require regular examinations for Classes 5 and 8, with an option for a re-exam if a student fails. If they fail again, they may be held back, but not without additional instruction and support to help them catch up. Despite its goals, this change raises concerns. The fear of being held back could lead to more students dropping out, especially those from underprivileged backgrounds. For families already struggling, the stigma and frustration of repeating a grade might push them to pull their children out of school altogether. Tamil Nadu, which has chosen to retain the no-detention policy, argues that this approach helps protect children from such challenges and ensures uninterrupted education up to Class 8. Another challenge lies in how effectively the new rules are implemented. Schools need adequate resources, trained teachers, and proper systems to provide remedial instruction for students who fail. Without these, the policy risks being more punitive than supportive. There are also questions about whether schools are prepared to conduct meaningful, competency-based assessments that focus on a child’s overall development rather than rote learning.

Ensuring that children learn effectively, reducing dropout rates, and addressing inequalities are all critical goals that need a balanced approach. Policymakers must work to improve teacher training, provide better resources, and involve parents and communities in supporting education. They also need to monitor the policy’s impact to ensure it benefits all children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.