Examining times for learning

The central advisory board of education in its meeting on August 19, recommended revocation of no-detention policy up to class VIII and resumption of the secondary board examination after class X. The ministry of human resource development wants to take a ‘total view’ on this. For quite some time, examination policies have oscillated between opposite points of views.

The Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 stipulated that no child can be held back in any class and abolished board exams till the completion of elementary education. The class X board ex­am was also waived.

Even while the ministry knocked off exams from sch­ools, it assigned critical value to the higher secondary (class XII) board exams by adding their marks to the scores of the joint entrance exam for IIT/­NIT. This reform was based on the belief that exams induce greater attention to studies. If that was the assumption then a non-detention policy at the elementary level was contrary to this assumption. It was also somewhat unrealistic to assume that students could automatically transit to higher cla­sses without exams and then be able to take the class XII board exam with confidence and ease.

If exams induce students to study and teachers to teach, then it makes eminent sense to have them. However, doing well in exams does not necessarily mean knowing that subject. It may just mean that one has mastered the trick of doing well in exams or is able to simply mechanically repeat a perceived pattern in a familiar context. This is one reason why children doing well in exams are often ignorant of the basics and are unable to perform to expectations in academic tests that change the context or the methodology of testing.

There is a certain belief that independent external te­sting would be objective and yield authentic assessment of learning quality. This, however, need not necessarily be the case. External, independent tests can function with the same predictable mechanical recall and repeat patterns as internal tests do.

It then follows that if exams were not designed on sound academic principles, they would compel cramming but not learning, and even if students were promoted on the basis of such exams, they were likely to falter once their knowledge was put to test. A good illustration is from the JEE-IIT system, which tests students on the curriculum of the CBSE (XII) board, but tests them for their analytical abilities.

The key question then is not as simple as re-introducing board exams or revoking the non-detention policy, but of designing systems that evaluate learning quality. The RTE, (section 29) carries a pointer in this direction by stipulating continuous comprehensive ev­aluation of a child’s knowledge and her/his ability to apply such knowledge. It locates this evaluation in an academic framework that crystallises into two sets of issues. The first set relates to academic processes within schools. This mandates child-friendly, activity-based, exploration-led learning, and regular assessments with remedial measures.

Notwithstanding the legal mandate, the reality is quite different, as has oft been commented upon by everyone —those who say aye to exams and those who say no. Textbooks are a basic example. In many states, these need revision with clearer learning objectives, a cognitively logical lesson structure and competency based assessments. This will stimulate analytical pedagogies. If textbooks have been so revised, they need to be transacted fully. These simple tasks will trigger off comprehensive, continuous evaluation, as each progressive step will depend on mastering antecedent ones.

The second set of issues in the RTE’s academic framework relate to school management. There are compulsory obligations upon the sta­te/manager to ensure a proper learning environment, such as good infrastructure, learning equipment, and trained and qualified teachers not diverted into non-academic tasks. In reality, teachers become appendices at the bottom rung of a bureaucratic hierarchy, spending nearly all their time on filling government forms or government surveys or collecting data on sundry matters. Nothing ma­kes sense if teachers are not let alone to do the one thing they manage to do only occasionally: teach.

Before turning children into guinea pigs of vacillating exam policies, why not first test what the teachers know? Why can’t teachers be recruited through a rigorous process that tests their academic competencies? Why not recruit teachers against schools, rather than against transferable posts? This might nurture their sense of ownership for that school and make them manifestly accountable for pupil’s performance. This will also end the transfer industry that thrives in inverse proportion to teaching standards. Finally, if a Hindi teacher teaches English or math, and handles more than one class simultaneously, as often happens in government schools, what exactly will be tested?

Unless RTE’s academic framework is effectively operational, neither will continuous comprehensive evaluation happen just by elaborate guidelines, nor will learning quality improve merely by inserting exams.

Source | Financial Chronicle | 3 September 2015