Detention policy: A fix or a fracture?

The new policy might increase drop-out rates for marginalised groups, writes P John J Kennedy

Over the past year, the Indian education sector, from primary to tertiary levels, has witnessed the introduction of numerous schemes, changes, and reforms. While these initiatives may appear well-intentioned on the surface, they often lack the depth of thought required to address the needs of India’s vast and diverse population.

As the year draws to a close, yet another so-called reform has been announced, which, unsurprisingly, risks diluting the original purpose for which the scheme was conceived. The Ministry of Education, through its gazette notification dated December 16, 2024, has introduced the ‘Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Rules, 2024,’ permitting schools to hold back students in classes 5 and 8 if they fail to meet promotion criteria in regular examinations. This amendment effectively reverses the protection under Section 16 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, which prohibited the detention of a child until the completion of elementary education.

This rollback has sparked intense debate among educationists, policymakers, and the public due to its potential to reshape India’s educational landscape. While some welcome the move, others lament that it has defeated the very purpose of the Act, which was introduced due to the continuous struggle of almost 100 years for free and compulsory education.

Although the policy allows detained students to retake the examination within two months, it raises concerns about the feasibility of effective remedial measures in such a short timeframe. It is unrealistic and risks setting students up for repeated failure. While some private school managements welcome the accountability the policy seeks to establish, others highlight its disproportionate impact on marginalised communities, including Dalits, tribals, and rural students. For these groups, the policy could increase dropout rates and push children into child labour, aggravating existing educational inequities.

A call for re-evaluating the policy

Unfortunately, education’s inclusion in the concurrent list allows central and state governments to influence policy, often leading to inconsistent implementation. For instance, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 remains unevenly applied across states, confusing educators and students. Ideally, education should be with the States as it was earlier. Introducing a detention policy amidst such uncertainty only adds to the education system's challenges.

According to the Ministry of Education, the detention policy aims to enhance academic standards by promoting student accountability. However, it seems more a response to concerns about declining pass percentages and a perceived lack of academic rigour. Sadly, this approach fails to address systemic issues such as inadequate teacher training, insufficient resources, and socio-economic barriers contributing to poor student performance. Also, historically, detention policies have not yielded positive outcomes in India.

Instead of motivating students, they have often led to stigmatisation and higher dropout rates, particularly among disadvantaged groups. In addition, the policy’s provision for post-exam remedial support highlights a significant flaw: why wait until students fail to intervene? Shouldn’t such support be ongoing throughout the academic year? However, logistical challenges such as high student-teacher ratios, limited teacher training, and resource constraints hinder early intervention. Hence, what is needed is a more proactive and inclusive approach.

Therefore, the detention policy calls for a reevaluation of India’s assessment practices. Many schools rely on summative assessments, primarily written tests, as the sole measure of progress. This disadvantages students with diverse learning styles and intelligences. Moreover, the arbitrary fixation on minimum pass marks of 35 or 40 undermines a holistic understanding of student capabilities.

In contrast, developed countries emphasise continuous assessment and skill-based learning, focusing on student growth rather than penalising underperformance. As the detention policy exposes deeper systemic issues, it calls for radical rethinking. Branding students as “failed” and halting their academic progress does little to improve outcomes. A more flexible grading system, which allows students to advance while reflecting their skill levels, could offer a viable alternative. Additionally, with the increasing role of technology, the necessity of high proficiency in all the subjects for all students warrants reevaluation. Why enforce mastery of content at that level that may even be redundant in the age of automation?

India’s education system must prioritise inclusivity, continuous learning, and skill development over rigid and outdated academic benchmarks. A forward-looking approach should focus on systemic reforms that empower students to thrive. It is high time India’s education system evolved to meet the demands of the 21st century.

(The author is a professor and Dean, Christ University, Bengaluru)