The pass mark debate: Are scores important?

High failure rates are often the symptom of structural deficiencies rather than proof of systemic rigour, writes P John J Kennedy.

The recent controversy over Karnataka’s decision to lower the Class 10 (SSLC) pass percentage from 35% to 33% has reignited a longstanding debate about the role of marks in determining student promotion. This seemingly minor numerical adjustment has been met with heated arguments about academic standards.

Yet, it also prompts us to revisit deeper questions: Should marks dictate whether a student progresses to the next grade? Does a mere two per cent difference truly spell the collapse of educational rigour? More fundamentally, what do our current pass benchmarks achieve, and are they meaningful indicators of student learning or quality education?

Karnataka’s move aligns its assessment framework with national norms, particularly those of the CBSE board, which has long maintained a 33% pass mark for Class 10. The new rules require students to achieve a minimum overall aggregate of 33%, including internal assessments, with a minimum threshold of 30% in each subject.

This represents a nuanced but significant shift from the earlier rigid criterion of 35% per subject without consideration for aggregate performance. Notably, CBSE’s system, which blends theory and practical marks, currently reports a pass rate exceeding 93%. This suggests that the 33% benchmark does not represent an unreasonably low standard.

Internationally, pass percentages are generally higher—40% in the UK, 50-60% in many countries—yet Indian boards have historically retained lower thresholds. Arguably, this peculiarity traces back to colonial education policies aimed at producing clerks and bureaucrats rather than fostering rigorous academic competence or critical scholarship.

Thus, the fixation on 35% as a sacrosanct marker is more a relic of historical expediency than a scientifically calibrated standard of learning. Shifting this threshold by a few points is unlikely to impact the intrinsic quality of education. However, it can have meaningful equity implications by reducing dropout rates and increasing access to continued education, especially for marginalised and under-resourced student populations.

Marks do not indicate learning

The central argument is straightforward: marks, particularly at these low passing thresholds, are an imperfect and often misleading proxy for actual learning. Educational research underscores this point, advocating for more flexible, formative, and criterion-referenced approaches instead of rigid cut-offs. Systems employing pass/fail criteria or mastery-focused assessments reduce student stress, enhance motivation, and promote deeper engagement with learning material.

For example, in South Korea, students assessed under flexible pass/fail systems with honours report higher intrinsic motivation and better academic achievement than those evaluated by strict grading schemas. Psychology research also demonstrates that when marks become the sole motivator, students tend to learn for scores rather than understanding, eroding intrinsic curiosity and diminishing authentic intellectual growth.

The fear that lowering pass marks will erode academic standards is not substantiated by evidence. CBSE’s longstanding 33% pass mark has yielded consistently high pass rates without apparent quality compromises. Critics who equate lower pass marks with “dilution” overlook the multifaceted reality: academic quality depends far more on the quality of curricula, teaching practices, school infrastructure, and student support mechanisms than on arbitrary numeric thresholds. High failure rates are often the symptom of structural deficiencies such as inadequate facilities, untrained teachers, or unreliable assessments, rather than proof of systemic rigour.

True educational progress demands a shift in focus away from the sanctity of pass marks toward improving teaching and learning conditions. Countries worldwide have adopted flexible assessment models combining internal evaluations, project work, and diagnostic feedback to create fairer, more inclusive systems.

Instead of debating whether the pass mark should be 33% or 35%, policymakers should prioritise investments in school infrastructure, teacher recruitment and training, and foundational literacy and numeracy initiatives—areas Karnataka’s own data shows remain in need of support.

This debate also forces us to confront a glaring truth: if our current systems genuinely produced graduates with robust skills and knowledge, India would not repeatedly face concerns about rote learning, unemployability, and weak foundational abilities. Quibbling over small percentage points distracts from these urgent structural challenges that hinder meaningful education reform.

Results important, not conformity

Ultimately, student promotion should reflect learning and progress rather than mere numerical conformity. Science-backed evidence points to the benefits of embracing flexible, formative assessments combined with holistic teaching support to enhance motivation, curiosity, and genuine mastery. Reducing thresholds like the pass mark must not be seen as a weakening of standards but as part of a broader effort to make education equitable, inclusive, and effective.

The time has come to move beyond fixating on pass marks toward creating learning environments where student curiosity and competence are truly nurtured. We should ask whether schools foster lasting skills and meaningful engagement instead of worrying whether a 33% pass rate signals decline. Education systems focused on nurturing progress and understanding will far outperform any measure based on a single, rigid number. In this shift lies the promise of genuinely transformative education.

(The author is a former professor and dean of a university in Bengaluru)