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.