Sometimes, even a small change in education leads to a huge public debate. The decision to award grades instead of marks for the third language in the recent SSLC examination is one such matter. This decision led to widespread discussion in the education sector, among parents, teachers, and on social media platforms. While some welcomed it as a step toward reducing unnecessary pressure on students, others opined that it might cause confusion in the evaluation system. Meanwhile, this matter also drew the attention of the court and led to emotional debates regarding language.
We must first begin this debate with a fundamental question. What is the purpose of an examination? Is it to measure a student’s learning? Or is it to push the student into anxiety? In my view, an examination is a tool to understand a student’s capability. It should not be a system that diminishes any child’s self-confidence. Both marks and grades are merely methods of evaluation. The true purpose of education is to improve learning.
Marks have their own importance. They become useful in competitive examinations, admission processes, and academic analysis. But the question of whether every subject should be measured in the same manner is also legitimate. Some educationists argue that the grade system can reduce excessive competition for marks among students and help focus more on learning. On the other hand, many teachers and parents have expressed the opinion that any major change must be implemented right at the beginning of the academic year, after comprehensive consultation.
The success of any education policy lies not just in its intent. It is also in how it is implemented. If changes are introduced midway without providing adequate information to students, parents, and teachers, anxiety will naturally arise. Trust is very important in education. Therefore, there must be clarity while formulating a policy, while explaining it, and while implementing it.
A discussion took place in the court regarding this matter as well. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed based on a rumour circulated in connection with the name of the Education Minister. The court recorded that the Minister had not made the statement alleged in the news, and opined that there was no public interest involved in the petition. This reminds us once again of the importance of verified information in public debate.
Another emotional aspect also got tied to this matter. That is the question of language. In Karnataka, language is not just a tool for communication; it is a part of culture, identity, and self-respect. Therefore, it is natural that decisions taken regarding Hindi, Kannada, or any language evoke emotional responses. While some expressed strong opinions in favour of Kannada on social media, others expressed anxiety about the Hindi language. It was also seen that this debate sometimes crossed logical reasoning and moved in the direction of emotional outbursts.
The Kannada language is the pride of our state. Developing it is our duty. But creating hatred toward any language should not be the purpose of education. Students can learn multiple languages. Learning languages expands opportunities. However, while deciding which language should be taught and how, the learning interest of students and the quality of education must be the first priority.
Amidst this debate, we must not forget the most important point. Students writing the SSLC examination are at the most sensitive stage of their lives. The burden of political or public debate taking place regarding policies should not be placed on their shoulders. What they need is clarity, stability, and self-confidence. Greater than the result of an examination are the possibilities of their lives.
Changes are necessary in education. But there must be proper reasons for these changes. They must be formulated with the advice of educationists and must keep the interest of students at the center. Whether it is marks or grades, ultimately our goal must be the same: children should love learning, they should develop their capabilities without anxiety, and education must be a strong foundation for them to realize their dreams.
The success of any education policy should not be measured by how much it was debated. It must be measured by how many students moved forward to the next level with self-confidence as a result of it. Because the true epicentre of education is not language, not marks, not grades, but the future of every single student.