One of the most significant changes introduced by CBSE in this academic year is the decision to conduct two sets of Board examinations for students. At first glance, this may seem like a progressive step, and I appreciate the intent behind it—perhaps to reduce pressure by offering multiple opportunities. However, when viewed critically, this move raises several concerns.
Let us first consider the global context. Countries like Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and even Japan have been consistently working to de-emphasize examinations and, in some cases, eliminate them altogether from their school systems. Their focus is on nurturing creativity, problem-solving, and holistic development rather than memorization and rote learning.
In contrast, the Indian assessment system continues to rely heavily on memory-based tests. Our students are often judged by how well they can reproduce content, not how well they understand or apply it. With around 220 working days in an academic year, nearly 3 to 4 months are spent purely on assessments—preparation, revision, exams, and corrections. This significantly eats into the time meant for genuine teaching and learning.
Now, if we introduce two Board exams within the same academic year, we must ask—when will teaching happen meaningfully?
Furthermore, let’s talk about exam stress. Class 10 students already experience significant anxiety. By splitting their final examination into two sessions, are we genuinely reducing their stress? Or are we, in fact, amplifying it—stretching it across the year, impacting not just the students but also their parents and teachers?
Let me draw a parallel with the JEE examination system. With two sessions now being conducted, many students take the first session lightly, assuming they can improve in the second. This mindset reduces seriousness and adds cumulative pressure later. Moreover, the financial burden and logistical challenges of conducting two large-scale exams, as experienced by the National Testing Agency, are considerable.
Also, when students are pushed to appear for competitive exams like JEE even before their school syllabus is completed, what purpose does it serve? What is the point of an assessment if it’s not based on complete learning?
Assessment should never be for “assassination.” It should be an opportunity to evaluate a student’s true potential—their reasoning, critical thinking, creativity, and application skills. But sadly, these are not even part of the current assessment metrics.
Hence, I believe the CBSE’s decision, though possibly well-intended, contradicts modern pedagogical principles. It lacks alignment with global best practices and risks becoming a step backward in our pursuit of progressive education.
Let us urge policymakers and education boards to study and learn from the models of successful countries—where formative assessments, skill-based evaluations, and student well-being are prioritised. Let us rethink this system before we normalise stress, superficial learning, and meaningless assessments.
