The Ministry of Education had recently allowed around 3,000 Kendriya Vidyalayas, including Kendriya Vidyalayas and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, to block Class 5 and 8 students if they do not clear the exam.
If the student does not clear the exam the first time, he will be given a shot at re-examination within two months. Failure to clear will result in the student being placed back in that class.
Decision of the Centre This comes five years after the Right to Education Act was amended, allowing states and the Center to decide whether to detain students in classes 5 and 8. Some states have since decided to abolish it. Let’s explain.
What was the ‘no-detention’ policy and why was it introduced?
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009 aimed to provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. Section 16 of the Act prohibits detention or expulsion of children. It states: “No child enrolled in school shall be suspended in any class or expelled from school until the completion of primary education,” ie up to class 8.
The reasoning was that repeating a class might be frustrating for the child and he might drop out. The ‘no-detention’ aspect was meant to ensure that students complete at least elementary education without dropping out. It also pointed out the possibility that students may have failed the examination due to the inadequacy of the education system.
Key to this concept was ‘Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation’ (CCE) at the primary level. This means that student understanding and application of knowledge will be assessed through continuous assessment. This Act provides that no child should pass the board examination until he completes elementary education.
Why was RTE amended?
In 2017, a bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha to amend the RTE Act, replacing Section 16 to specify that classes 5 and 8 would hold regular examinations at the end of the academic year. If the child fails the test, they will be given further instruction and re-test within two months. Failing this, the “appropriate government” may allow schools to withdraw the child. States and the Center will decide to block students in schools within their jurisdiction.
When the amendment bill was submitted to the Parliament, Section 16 of the Act mentioned in the statement of the subject and reason that ‘healthy results were not seen’. “Children seem to be routinely promoted from one grade to the next with no connection to what they are learning. There are instances where children’s attendance is very low and as a result they are not learning meaningfully. It defeats the purpose of the Act,’ he wrote.
The bill was referred to a standing committee which recommended the removal of the no detention policy. Then it was passed in 2019.
What were the arguments for and against not to be detained?
In 2012, the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), the apex education advisory body, constituted a sub-committee to examine the implementation of CCE in the context of non-binding provisions. Headed by then Haryana Education Minister Geeta Bhukkal, the sub-committee called for “more flexibility” in the no-detention system, meaning it should allow detention of “backward” students.
Its report pointed to two “key trends” in the quality of education in government schools. Based on data from the NGO First’s annual Status of Education report, it found that “learning standards are declining”. From 2010 to 2013, there was a 10 percentage point drop in the number of students who could read Class 5 in government schools in rural areas. It also mentions “migration to private schools”.
It identified “root causes” for falling learning standards, including “lack of assessment”. While the ‘no detention’ clause, it says, is trying to achieve laudable objectives such as inclusion, minimizing dropout rates and removing the fear of failure among students, it is often misinterpreted as “no assessment” or “no relevance of assessment” in schools. . Furthermore, it pointed to low student motivation “the common message is that ‘performance doesn’t matter'”, and “low teacher accountability.”
Not everyone in the subcommittee agreed. Some argue that there is no evidence to show that detention enables learning. Pvt. Nargis Panchapakesan noted that “children are failing because of the system” and that “most of the children going to government schools now belong to marginalized groups and will be affected by the detention policy”. There were no comparative studies to point to learning gains before and after the no-detention policy was implemented, he added.
In 2015, the sub-committee’s report was submitted to CABE, which then asked states/UTs to share their views. Out of 23 states/UTs, 18 suggested revising the policy. States like Madhya Pradesh and Punjab suggested introducing board exams in class 5 and 8 as no detention would “adversely affect academic performance”.
Some states, such as Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, said they should continue the no-detention policy to ensure a minimum of eight years of schooling or else the dropout rate would increase. They suggested strengthening the CCE system.
In 2016, CABE passed a resolution to revoke the policy, meaning students were not serious about their studies.
Meanwhile, in 2016, the TSR Subramanian Committee submitted a report on the New Education Policy 2016, which said that the no-detention policy should be continued up to class 5 only.
The committee said, “The no-detention policy has reduced dropout rates in primary schools and kept children in the learning cycle for up to 8 years. A comparison of Class 10 and Class 12 results for 2009, 2012 and 2013 of CBSE and other state boards shows that in most states, The percentage has increased… This empirically proves the usefulness of the no-detention policy, for both boys and girls there, as well There has been a steady increase in the GER (Gross Enrollment Ratio) at the primary level for SCs, STs and other marginalized groups.
When the Parliamentary Standing Committee considering the RTE Amendment Bill called for suggestions, the arguments they received against scrapping non-barriers included a lack of evidence that the policy itself had caused a decline in learning outcomes, which could also be attributed to other factors such as infrastructure. In schools and teaching.
Which states/UTs maintain a no-detention policy?
Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Mizoram, Odisha, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Chandigarh, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands (and Haryana and Puducherry, where a final decision has not been taken.Continue the no-detention policy. Tamil Nadu School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyamozhi has also said that schools in the state will continue with it.
Meanwhile, Delhi, Punjab, MP, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Bihar and Gujarat have scrapped the policy. For Delhi, 2023-24 was the first academic year in which it was scrapped. About 20% of Class 8 students who appeared for their exams failed – 46,662 students out of a total of 2,34,894. Out of 28,126 students participating in class 5 examination, 262 students (total 0.93%) failed.
Why should you buy our membership?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be confused and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package