Karnataka’s education system has undergone significant changes this year, with new policies aimed at addressing the rigidity in the system to make it more flexible and student-friendly. However, some of these reforms have sparked public debate, as the state grapples with their real education implications.
From revamping examination formats to reverting UG programme duration and revising school textbooks, the state’s attempts at reform have led to questions about their effectiveness and consequences on the educational ecosystem.
The introduction of thrice-yearly board examinations for Class 10 and 2nd PU stands out as a bold move to enable students to continue education without any hurdle or loss of an academic year. It also intends to reduce academic pressure. By allowing students to pick their best scores across three attempts, the policy aims to cater to varied learning paces and test-taking abilities.
However, this seemingly progressive step risks overemphasising examination performance at the expense of holistic education and critical thinking. Frequent examinations could also strain resources and burden teachers, while inadvertently fostering complacency among students who might rely on multiple attempts instead of aiming for excellence.
This may push students to a casual approach to education, saying, ‘If not now, next time’. Striking a balance between alleviating stress and maintaining academic rigour and standard remains a critical challenge.
In higher education, the decision to revert undergraduate programmes from a four-year course to the earlier three-year format marks another significant shift. This move, designed to enhance accessibility for economically disadvantaged and rural students, underscores the state’s commitment to inclusivity and specialised knowledge degree without strings attached.
Yet, a section of people expressed concerns about the logistical hurdles for institutions that have already aligned with the four-year structure under the National Education Policy -2020 (NEP). The sudden transition disrupts academic planning, curriculum design, and resource allocation, potentially compromising education quality during the transition period. Moreover, the shift could also limit some students’ aspirations for international education as the four-year model aligns better with global standards, offering smoother pathways for postgraduate opportunities abroad.
A dual approach — offering both three-year and four-year options — could better serve Karnataka’s diverse student population and the demands of the global academic landscape.
Textbook revisions have further stirred the education pot. Reinstating works of progressive writers and removing the controversial content from the previous revision reflect efforts to promote inclusivity and diverse perspectives. However, the expedited nature of these changes poses challenges as educational institutions may need to adjust preparatory programmes, teaching methodologies, and resource allocation.
Frequent textbook revisions also risk politicising education. While the intent to create an inclusive educational environment is commendable, the rapid pace of implementation could disrupt the ecosystem, impacting faculty members and students alike.
Beyond policies and curricula, disparities in resource distribution have come into sharp focus. Urban schools in Tier 1 cities benefit from infrastructure upgrades and modernised facilities, while government schools, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, face persistent challenges such as acute teacher shortages and inadequate infrastructure facilities.
With numerous teaching positions vacant in districts, the burden on existing staff increases, posing a big challenge for quality education. While urban infrastructure development is essential, it should not overshadow the pressing needs of government schools that cater to the majority of the student population. Addressing these disparities is crucial to ensuring equitable access to quality education.
To achieve a truly inclusive education system, Karnataka must prioritise recruiting and supporting qualified and competent teachers. The focus should be on creating an environment where teachers are motivated and equipped to inspire students. By implementing targeted interventions, learning from what works, and investing in teacher training, the state can align with global standards while ensuring lasting, meaningful progress.