In the Indian education system, universal promotion policy up to class V has been in the statute for quite a long time. Not everyone cared to adhere to. The situation changed dramatically as a result of Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2010 wherein a provision was made that no child will be detained up to class VIII. The enactment of the act made it mandatory for all to follow it in letter and spirit. That made the difference. Impact of a large number of students getting promoted to class IX even without minimum learning attainments began to result in pass percentage in class IX reducing to less than 50% in some schools. Arguments were also made to the effect that teaching-learning standards, strive for excellence and long term achievement of students is taking a toll. Hence came proposals from several quarters that the policy of no detention up to class VIII needs a revisit. Reports suggest that the Central Advisory Board on Education, the apex body on such matters was overwhelmingly in favour of abolishing the existing policy. The final verdict is still awaited.
Given the context, one needs to examine the issue from the perspective of learning attainment, pedagogy, equity in education and larger educational goals. Failure is seen as a stigma. It also results in a huge loss of opportunity and cost. There is very little evidence to suggest that detaining a child in a class will result in spectacular achievement in the second year. Armed with the option of failing child schools will be free to exercise the option without any accountability. No interventions whatsoever will be initiated to support the child. As a result children with no parental support and the economically weaker background will suffer the most.
There are some valid arguments on the other side too. In our effort to bring each child to a school we have paid very little attention to creating the right conditions, teacher recruitment, in-service training and infrastructure. First-generation learners, those who are called upon by the family to support them in economic activities, girl students have no support system at home to fall back or derive motivation from. Their academic attainment is therefore far below the expected level. The argument, therefore, is to give them more time, a euphemism for detention.
A deeper debate is called for before taking a final decision on the subject. More caution is required in matters related to the children and their education. This case is more special because arguments on both sides carry equal validity.
Comments