The Central Government’s Decision to Scrap the No-Detention Policy for Class 5 and 8

Dr. Kirti Munjal, Principal, Tulsi College of Education for Women, Ambala City (Haryana)

“Empower yourselves with a good education, then get out there and use that education to build a country worthy of your boundless promise.” – Michelle Obama

In a significant move to reform the Indian education system and make it useful and relevant, the Centre has decided to scrap the “no-detention policy” for students in classes 5 and 8 in schools governed by it including Kendriya Vidyalayas and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas. Introduced in 2010 under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, this policy ensured that children could not be held back or retained in the same grade, regardless of their academic performance. However, in December 2024, the government announced changes that would allow schools to retain students in classes 5 and 8 if they fail to meet the required academic standards. In this article we will explore the implications of this decision within the global context and its potential impact on India’s educational landscape.

Background: The No-Detention Policy in India

The no-detention policy was introduced to reduce dropout rates and promote attendance, focusing on formative  assessments  and  continuous  learning  rather  than  punitive  measures.  However,  critics argued  that  it  led  to  a  decline  in  academic  standards,  as  many  students  got  promoted  without mastering  fundamental  concepts.  The  CEO  of  Pratham  Education  Foundation,  Dr.  Rukmini  Banerji pointed  out,  “While  the  intent  was  to  ensure  that  children  stay  in  school,  the  policy  inadvertently allowed students to move ahead without acquiring the necessary skills” (Banerji, 2015). This highlights the importance of accountability and the need for academic rigor and responsibility in schools.

Global Context: Detention Policies in Other Countries

To understand the significance of India’s decision, it is essential to examine how detention policies are handled in other parts of the world.

1. United States: In the U.S., the practice of retaining students is not uniform across the country and varies by state and district. The policy often relies on standardized test scores, with students who fail to meet the required benchmarks being held back. The retention policy in the U.S. is controversial, with studies showing mixed results. Some research suggests that retaining students can have negative emotional and social consequences, while other studies indicate that it helps struggling students catch up with their peers academically. A study by the National Association of School Psychologists found that retained students are at a higher risk of low self-esteem and disengagement from school (National Association of School Psychologists, 2016).
2. Finland: Finland’s education system is known for its emphasis on inclusivity and a flexible approach to learning. Finland does not have a traditional detention policy, and the focus is on providing support to students who are falling behind. Rather than retaining students, the Finnish system places strong emphasis on early intervention, personalized learning, and collaboration between teachers, students, and parents. Finnish educators are trained to provide the necessary support for students to succeed, and retention is seen as a last resort. As Pasi Sahlberg, Finnish education expert, notes, “In Finland, we do not believe in keeping children back. Instead, we give them the help they need to succeed” (Sahlberg, 2011).
3. Singapore: Singapore, known for its rigorous educational standards, employs a different approach. The country has an extensive system of testing and streaming, where students are assessed at various points in their education and placed into different academic tracks based on performance. Although retention is less common, the focus is on early identification of struggling students and targeted interventions to help them improve. The Singaporean model relies heavily on strong teacher-student relationships and constant feedback. According to the Ministry of Education, Singapore’s focus on “personalized learning and early interventions” has been key to reducing the need for retention (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2020).
   

The Rationale Behind the Indian Government’s Decision

The Indian government’s decision to end the no-detention policy stems from a belief that holding students accountable for their academic progress leads to better learning outcomes. A highly acclaimed IAS officer, Dr. Anil Swarup has aptly remarked, “What’s the point of promoting a child to the next grade if they cannot even write their name in the language of the curriculum?” (Swarup, 2023). The government aims to encourage students to take their studies seriously while providing an opportunity for remediation.

Key factors driving this policy change include:

1. Improving Academic Standards: Critics argue that the automatic promotion of students has lowered academic performance. By allowing retention, the government hopes to ensure students develop the necessary skills before moving on to the next grade.
2. Teacher Accountability: Teachers have long felt disempowered by the no-detention policy, as they could not retain students who were not meeting academic standards. This new policy aims to provide teachers with the authority to guide underperforming students effectively and ensure accountability.
3. Focus on Quality Education: This shift emphasizes learning outcomes over mere enrolment, ensuring that students don’t just attend school but gain the knowledge and skills to succeed.

Potential Implications and Concerns

Despite the potential benefits, there are concerns regarding the policy’s implementation:

1. Increased Dropout Rates: Critics worry that retention could lead to higher dropout rates, especially in economically disadvantaged areas. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan’s words “The main purpose of education is not to fill the mind with facts but to teach one to think and to help the child grow, not to crush his spirit,” remind us that academic pressure should not come at the expense of students’ well-being.
2. Stress on Students: The removal of the no-detention policy may add to the existing pressures faced by students, particularly those from marginalized communities. Balancing academic rigor with mental health support is essential to prevent negative emotional consequences.
3. Teacher and Implementation Challenges: The policy places greater responsibility on teachers, who may lack the necessary resources and training to support struggling students. Without proper infrastructure, the policy could widen the achievement gap.

Conclusion

The Central government’s decision to scrap the no-detention policy is a step towards improving academic accountability and quality education. However, as the country adapts to this change, it must balance the need for academic rigor with mental health support and targeted interventions. Global systems like Finland and Singapore provide valuable lessons in focusing on individualized support.
As we consider the implications, let us remember the words of Rabindranath Tagore: “The highest education is that which does not merely give us information, but makes our life in harmony with all existence.” India’s education system must aim to create not just academically proficient students, but also holistic individuals who can contribute meaningfully to society.