The Government is spot on in reconsidering the no-detention policy in schools. Education is, perhaps, the most difficult sector in terms of introducing reforms. Nevertheless, Javadekar must be ready to face opposition to this pro-nation, pro-children reform

Children studying in elementary classes could go up to class VIII even if they did not learn anything since the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, was implemented in 2010. Section 16 of the RTE mentions, “No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education.” Admission could also not be denied to any child under the RTE. In essence, all children had to be admitted to the age appropriate class and promoted to the next class even if they learned nothing. The major impact of this provision was seen on  Government schools as they were the only schools which implemented RTE in letter and spirit. As a consequence, Government schools became child minding centres, where children were kept engaged during the school hours, up to the age of 14 and in some cases up to the age of 18 years.

To make the provision of ‘no detention’ effective, Continuous and Comprehensive Education (CCE) was to be introduced in all schools. CCE expected teachers to keep record of the learning levels attained by each child, and each child had to be given support in the area he/she required. Since class size could not be brought to the desired one teacher to approximately 35 learners, the CCE could not be effectively done. Also, the teachers had to be trained to implement CCE effectively, which had to be a laborious process to be done over a few years if not a decade. CCE was implemented in a hurry after the RTE was implemented.

The 59th meeting of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), held on June 6, 2012, decided to constitute a sub committee under the Chairpersonship of Geeta Bhukkal, the Minister of Education in the Congress Government in Haryana, to assess the implementation of CCE in the light of no detention provision.

The committee met a large number of stakeholders, including parents, teachers, unions and scanned research reports and internal discussion, besides others. In writing about the quality of education in Government primary schools, the Bhukkal Committee said that (i) learning levels have been declining since no detention has been implemented; (ii) migration towards private schools has rapidly grown.

The sub committee submitted its report in August 2014, which was placed before the 63rd CABE committee held on August 19, 2015. In the CABE, there was a complete consensus among Ministers of different States, across party lines, on revoking the provision of ‘no detention’ and unanimity in accepting the recommendations of the Bhukkla committee. The committee agreed that the essence of ‘no detention’ policy was misunderstood.

Even though the recommendations of the Bhukkal committee was accepted by the 63rd CABE, it was decided to request all States and Union Territories (UT) to share their views on the no detention policy within a stipulated time. The States reiterated their stand on revoking the provision of ‘no detention’. Another sub committee, under the Chairpersonship of  Vasudeo Devnani Minister for School Education, Rajasthan, was constituted to review the feedback received from States/UT and submitted its recommendations. The Devnani committee recommended:

i) There should be an examination at Class V. It should be left to the States and UT to decide whether this exam will be at the school, block, district or State level. ii) If a child fails, then give him/her an opportunity to improve. There should be additional instruction provided to the child and he/she should be given an opportunity to sit for another exam. If the child is unable to pass the exam in the second chance, detain the child.  iii) At class VI and VII, there should be a school-based exam for the students.  iv) At class VIII, there should be an external exam. In case the child fails, he/she should be given additional instruction and then appear for an improvement exam. If the child fails again, then detain.

There has been widespread discussions through two CABE sub committees with experts and stakeholders and it is a researched and considered view now. Government schools, which are the main system for education of  millions of children, have been abandoned and children have migrated to expensive private schools, who follow assessment and evaluation process. 

It is now learnt that HRD Minister, Prakash Javadekar, now intends to amend the provision of ‘no detention’ and bring in assessment at the end of classes V and VIII, as suggested by the Devnani committee. Some academics have expressed their views against this provision, mostly on grounds that most developed nations do not detain children during the early years and detention has an adverse psychological impact on children. They do not want to take into account that a whole generation has passed out of our schools without learning anything as they were not detained up to class VIII and class X board examination was made optional so they could also get through the secondary education, the foundation of learning, without writing any examination. Did the provision serve the cause of learning or damage it; most academics ask.

We know through our teaching-learning experience that learning is directly related to effort made; and effort is not made if there is no assessment and reward for the effort made. Introduction of assessment at class V and VIII levels will infuse quality without unduly burdening the children. Of all sectors, education is the most difficult sector in terms of introducing reforms. Academics and students both oppose most reforms. Status quo is preferred. Ministers who have tried to introduce quality improvement reforms had to face strong opposition and face consequences.  Javadekar must be ready to face opposition, but posterity will prove this was another important pro-nation, pro-children reform; rather reversal of a misplaced reform.

(The writer is Chairman, National Institute of Open Schooling. Views expressed are personal)