When school sections become labels

Come exam season, schools are under pressure. Parents want results, and managements want good pass percentages. In this environment, some schools appear to be adopting a practice that looks efficient but can be deeply harmful to children. 

Students are being moved across sections in the same grade, sometimes during the academic year, based on test scores. Section A has the highest scorers, Section B has the next group, and so on, until the last section has children who scored the lowest.

At first glance, this may look practical. Schools may argue that high-performing students need a faster pace, while struggling students need more support. These are valid concerns. But there is a big difference between identifying learning gaps and publicly sorting children by marks.

A child moved to the ‘weak section’ is not just receiving academic support but is also being given a label. Students know what the sections mean. Parents know it. Teachers know it. The child knows it most of all.

Test marks show performance. They do not define a child’s identity. A student who scores less may be struggling with a concept, language, confidence, home situation, health, attention, or exam readiness. But when the child is placed in a lower section, the message can become much harsher: “This is where you belong.”

For a child, especially in high school, this can be damaging. These are already stressful years, with academic pressure, peer comparison, parental expectations, and self-doubt. Visibly ranked sections can affect confidence and belonging. Some children may feel ashamed. Some may withdraw. Some may stop trying. A child who has stopped trying is not a child who is being helped.

Children do not grow in straight lines. A child may be strong in mathematics but weak in language. Another may be slow in exams but good at problem-solving. A third may improve suddenly with the right teacher or support. Children are uneven, and that is normal. Schools should be flexible enough to respond to this, not rigid enough to brand them.

The intention may not be to hurt children, but intention is not enough. A practice must be judged by its effect. This kind of sectioning can also change teacher expectations and classroom pace. The top section may get more attention, faster teaching, and sometimes the best teachers. Lower sections may get slower pacing and lower ambition. Over time, the gap can widen, and the school may mistake the result for proof that the grouping was right.

Schools that do this well keep regular sections mixed and provide subject-wise support. A child who needs help in mathematics can attend a focused support session without being moved into a permanently lower section. Remedial support can be temporary, flexible, and based on specific learning needs. Schools can also challenge children who are far ahead in a subject, but that is different from ranking the whole grade into visible sections. A child should know, “I need help in this topic,” not “I am a weak student.” 

Global experience and India’s NEP 2020 point in the same direction: support should be flexible, not a permanent label. 

Parents must question this approach. Many may accept it because they believe the school is being serious about academics. But seriousness must not come at the cost of a child’s confidence. Parents should welcome support, but they should object to public labelling.

The goal of education is not only to produce toppers. It is to help every child move forward from where they are. A school that helps everyone move forward with confidence does something more important than celebrating top scorers.

This matters even more in the age of AI, as people grapple with what children should learn and what skills will matter in the future. Children need exposure to different peers, different ways of thinking, and different forms of strength, not a narrow path based only on marks. A child who is not a top scorer today may have strengths in communication, creativity, design, problem-solving, empathy, leadership, or entrepreneurship. A narrow view of “strong” and “weak” groups may limit how children see themselves and their future.

Schools face real challenges. Classes are large, learning levels vary, board exam pressure is real, and teachers need practical systems. But a system that protects dignity and gives confidence is also practical. Schools should assess children, support children, and challenge children. But they should not sort children in a way that makes them feel lesser.

A child’s marks can change. A child’s confidence, once broken, is much harder to rebuild.

(The writer is secretary of the India Literacy Project, a non-profit organisation working in the area of education)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH).