An amendment to abolish the no-detention policy in the Right To Education Act 2009 is viewed as a favourable one by the states which have been demanding such a reform for a long time. Before the amendment, under the purview of Section 16 in the Right To Education Act, a student from Class I to VIII could not be detained on any grounds. However, that is set to change with the Lok Sabha passing the Right To Education Amendment Bill, 2017 which was subsequently, and recently, approved by the Rajya Sabha in its winter session. Following the amendment, it is upon the discretion of individual states to formulate their own detention policy. Those in favour argue that this is set to improve the ‘quality’ of education, keep lackadaisical behaviour towards exams in check, and ‘promote better learning’—whatever that is supposed to mean. However, it calls for a closer examination, and to critically evaluate the far-reaching consequences that the amendment can have.
When the policy of no-detention was implemented, it was done keeping the letter and spirit of the Right To Education Act 2009 in mind. The act is perhaps one of the most empowering and remarkable pieces of legislation in post-Independent India—owing to the well-encompassing promise of free and compulsory education as a fundamental right. Its achievement is evident with an unprecedented rise in the number of students enrolled in schools and a lower-dropout rate observed in recent years.
Although, that is set to change with the amendment of the no-detention policy. Students, who were earlier promoted to a higher class along with their fellow classmates, will be held back for poor performance. This could lead to an increase in the dropout rate. There have been numerous studies supporting the argument that detaining a student, especially those in between Class I and VIII, can further demotivate them and ultimately act as a deterrent in their education. On the other hand, there is little to no data supporting the theory that detention can have a positive outcome. Moreover, the brunt is also inequitably distributed as those from marginalised communities have more chances of being held back than those with better resources. It becomes even more problematic as a low-income family is already likely to be burdened with spending on education, and may be eager to have their child contribute to the household rather than ‘wasting’ time and resources on education. Therefore, families who do not find merit in education or are compelled by unfortunate circumstances are more likely to encourage dropping out.
Apart from this, there is no clarity on how the states will decide upon their detention policy, leaving the scope for arbitrary and non-uniform policies to be implemented across states.
This brings us to the larger question of whether examination and marks are the right criteria to assess the levels of learning, and whether the stress and anxiety of exams should even exist for children as young and tender as those between Class I and VIII. However, even if we consider that marks are the most appropriate and sole criteria to judge a student for the sake of argument, isn’t it also then an indicator of the performance of the teacher, school, and ultimately even the Government’s incapability, if a child fails to be interested in what is being taught?
The Centre could have perhaps looked at alternate solutions such as remedial classes, improving the infrastructure and quality of teachers, as well as increasing its budget on education, rather than relegating and denying its responsibility. While debating in favour of the amendment to abolish the no-detention policy, Human Resource Development Minister Prakash Javadekar reasoned that we have to rebuild our education system, which is (at present) broken. However, starting to revamp things by holding back a student in an already broken education system is not the wisest move, and can end up being more detrimental than beneficial.