Centre Abolishes 'No-Detention Policy' for Classes 5 and 8: Re-Exam Option Introduced

The Centre scraps the 'no-detention policy' for Classes 5 and 8, allowing schools to hold back students who fail year-end exams, while ensuring no child is expelled until elementary education is completed.

Centre Abolishes 'No-Detention Policy' for Classes 5 and 8: Re-Exam Option Introduced

In a major overhaul of school education policies, the Central Government has officially ended the 'no-detention policy'for Classes 5 and 8 in schools under its jurisdiction. This allows schools to hold back students who fail to clear year-end exams, provided they are given an opportunity to retake exams after additional coaching. The policy change aligns with amendments to the Right to Education Act (RTE) made in 2019.

Key Features of the New Policy

  • Re-examination Opportunity:
    • Students failing the annual exams will receive additional coaching and will be allowed to retake exams within two months of the results.
    • If a student fails to meet the promotion criteria in the re-examination, they will be held back in the same class.
  • Support for Students Held Back:
    • Teachers are required to provide guidance to both the student and their parents.
    • Specialised inputs will be offered to address identified learning gaps, ensuring the child’s academic progress.
  • No Expulsion Clause:
    • The government clarified that no child shall be expelled from school until they complete their elementary education, irrespective of exam results.

Applicability

  • The notification impacts over 3,000 central government-run schools, including Kendriya VidyalayasNavodaya Vidyalayas, and Sainik Schools.
  • State Autonomy: School education being a state subject, states and Union Territories (UTs) can decide whether to implement the revised policy.

State Responses

  • Adoption of the Policy: At least 16 states and 2 UTs, including Delhi, have already scrapped the no-detention policy for Classes 5 and 8.
  • Pending Decisions: Haryana and Puducherry are yet to decide on this policy shift.
  • Retention of the Policy: Several states and UTs have opted to continue with the no-detention policy.

Rationale for the Policy Change

  • The no-detention policy, introduced to reduce dropouts and promote inclusive education, faced criticism for allegedly leading to declining academic standards.
  • Experts and educators have pointed out that the absence of accountability for academic performance led to learning gaps and undermined the education system’s efficacy.

Policy Objectives

The reintroduction of detention aims to:

  1. Enhance Academic Standards: Encourage students to meet minimum learning outcomes for promotion to the next grade.
  2. Strengthen Accountability: Motivate students and teachers to focus on performance and progress.
  3. Address Learning Deficiencies: Provide targeted interventions for students struggling with academics.

Source: Hindustan Times & NDTV

SC Upholds Conviction Under Common Intention: Severity of Injuries Alone Cannot Reduce Punishment
Legal Wires
SC Upholds Conviction Under Common Intention: Severity of Injuries Alone Cannot Reduce Punishment
The Supreme Court ruled that punishment cannot be reduced for individuals acting with common intention merely because the injuries inflicted by them were less severe than those caused by co-accused.
Supreme Court to Decide: Should the Age for Annulment Under PCMA Be 18 or 21 While Addressing Gender Inequality?
Legal Wires
Supreme Court to Decide: Should the Age for Annulment Under PCMA Be 18 or 21 While Addressing Gender Inequality?
The Supreme Court examines whether the age of majority for males under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is 18 or 21, determining the limitation period for filing marriage annulment petitions.
Bombay High Court: Limited Evidence Invalidates SC/ST Act Charges in Complex Case
Legal Wires
Bombay High Court: Limited Evidence Invalidates SC/ST Act Charges in Complex Case
The Bombay High Court quashed SC/ST Act charges for most accused, citing lack of evidence, while upholding IPC charges of simple hurt and criminal intimidation for four individuals involved in the case.
Or
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources
No Sources Available
Ask AI