Answer

Educational reforms aim to enhance learning outcomes, but their success depends on effective implementation. The CBSE’s proposed biannual board exams (2024), intended to reduce stress and offer flexibility, raise concerns about logistical feasibility, teacher preparedness, and evaluation integrity. India, with 26.52 crore students (Eco Survey), faces systemic challenges in translating policy vision into meaningful change.

Gap Between Policy Intent and Implementation Challenges

• Conceptual vs. Logistical Focus: The policy aims to reduce pressure but emphasizes scheduling rather than transforming assessment methods, risking continuity in rote learning rather than genuine understanding.
  For example: Without structural changes in question patterns, students may still rely on coaching-driven preparation, limiting conceptual grasp.
• Burden of Dual Preparation: Instead of alleviating stress, the scheme may force students into intensive preparation for both exams, increasing pressure rather than offering relief.
  For example: Coaching institutes might exploit this dual attempt system, promoting extra crash courses, escalating students’ mental strain.
• Short Remedial Window: The two-month gap between exams is insufficient for meaningful conceptual improvement, promoting re-memorization rather than skill-building.
  For example: Without structured remedial classes, weaker students will resort to rote learning instead of addressing fundamental gaps.
• Financial pressure: The non-refundable double-exam fee disproportionately affects underprivileged students, creating an additional financial barrier.
  For example: Marginalized students who only wish to appear once will still pay for two, discouraging equitable participation.
• Administrative Overload: Managing twice the exam scripts increases burden on evaluators, reducing grading efficiency and delaying Class 11 admissions.
  For example: Schools handling multiple test cycles may struggle to ensure fair allocation of resources, affecting academic planning.

Implications Across Different Dimensions

Measures to Align with NEP 2020’s Vision

• Competency-Based Assessments: Shift question design towards application and analysis rather than factual recall, promoting conceptual understanding.
• Structured Remedial Support: Schools must integrate targeted remedial programs between exams to ensure actual learning improvement.
  For example: Personalized teacher-led interventions can help weak students build skills, rather than repeating content.
• Flexible Fee Structure: Implement an opt-in system where students pay only for the attempts they take, reducing financial strain.
  For example: Underprivileged students choosing only one attempt should not bear dual costs, ensuring fair access.
• Phased Implementation: Conduct regional pilot programs before full-scale rollout to assess logistical and pedagogical feasibility.
  For example: A controlled trial in diverse schools will highlight challenges, allowing gradual improvement.
• Digital Integration for Evaluations: Adopt AI-based grading tools to manage large-scale evaluations efficiently and fairly.
  For example: Automated pattern recognition can help evaluators maintain uniform grading standards, reducing inconsistencies.

The two-exam scheme must evolve beyond structural changes to ensure equity, flexibility, and holistic learning. Strengthening teacher training, digital infrastructure, and assessment reforms will bridge implementation gaps. Integrating continuous evaluation, vocational pathways, and financial support aligns with NEP 2020’s vision, making education more inclusive, skill-oriented, and future-ready.

DOWNLOAD PDF