Same curriculum, different exam papers - a brilliant idea?

It is sometimes hard to fathom what goes through the minds of policymakers, be it UGC and AICTE for higher education or CBSE for school education. We have good reason to assume they have access to some of the best minds that work on learning theories, pedagogies, curriculum design, student well-being, and all the other allied areas required by a policy entity.

Given the lack of transparency from these bodies in terms of their thinking process (when coming up with policy decisions), we can only try to decipher the intent from these decisions. This article discusses one such decision that this Indian Express opinion piece highlights - proposal to introduce two difficulty levels of paper in Science and Social Science (on the lines of what CBSE already has for Mathematics).

Context

A few years ago, CBSE introduced two levels in Mathematics (Basic and Standard) in grade X in the last several years. Everything is the same in terms of teaching scope and learning objectives; students attend the same classes and the same internal exams. Earlier, they had barred the students of Basic Mathematics from studying science (with maths) in Grade XI-XII, but that has been removed now (which is a good thing). Now, the only difference is that they get different end exam (board) papers that vary in difficulty level. My daughter recently went through this cycle where her class was asked to make this selection. It wasn't clear what criteria students (and parents) should use to select (other than better marks).

To be fair, these two flavors of mathematics have two different course codes, so technically they are two different courses so the marks comparison is not apple-to-apple comparision. Therefore you are not supposed to say, "I got 80 in mathematics", you are supposed to say, "I got 80 in Basic Mathematics."

Thought process

So, what does this say about CBSE's thought process?

They seem to think that the students are better served if they get a 'less difficult exam paper' and hence score more marks. Given that they keep the same pedagogy and curricula, clearly, they also think the students who need better marks do not need support from pedagogical or curricular interventions perspective.

This turns learning theories on their head. The best support we can provide to students who struggle is to teach them in a way they understand better. This usually takes more time commitment which makes a case for reducing the scope of the curriculum. How is giving them more marks (in a sneaky way by not making obvious that the marks are in Basic Maths and not Standard Maths) useful in any way if learning is the goal?

By extending this model to more subjects, CBSE seems to be perpetrating the myth that all you need to do is get to claim I scored better marks, and all your struggles with the subject can be forgotten. Given that secondary education is supposed to be for everyone, this is an unusual thought process. If CBSE feels that a significant portion of the population can do without the rigor of Standard Mathematics (and exam is as much the part of rigor as the content) many people can't cope with it), they should make the Basic level of exam paper the new level for everyone. If they want a distinction, they can introduce an advanced level as an optional module or course.

CBSE should consider producing some evidences:

1. Basic is enough for everyone (or not).
2. Just the difference of exam papers is achieving the goals (and publish the goals as well)
3. People get more marks when they take Basic than if they had taken Standard (it is not as obvious as it sounds)

One reason why CBSE might have chosen this way may have been to avoid creating more burden for schools and teachers - every new subject teaching requires significant resources from the school). By only changing the exam, they kept the burden on CBSE and grading and made it easier for schools to follow Basic and Standard distinction. If this is the case, then clearly CBSE thinks its administrative problems are more important than student learning. So much for student-centricity!

I so wish they could be more transparent about their research and thinking process.