Lowering the Bar

A Recent Development

Late last month, around 23 October 2024, many newspapers carried the story that the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) in Maharashtra has decided to reduce the pass mark for mathematics and science from 35 to 20. The caveat is that students who have scored at least 20 marks but less than 35 will be declared as having passed that subject. However, their mark sheet will indicate that they no longer qualify to take further studies in mathematics or sciences. Quite naturally, there were mixed responses to this move. In this post we will look at some of these responses to which I will offer my own critique. In the next post, which will be two weeks from today, since I will not post next week, I will suggest what I think is the purpose of primary and secondary education. In that context I will raise two problems we currently face with mathematics in primary and secondary school. So let us look at the views expressed by some people about the lowering of the pass mark.

Introducing Common Pitfalls

According to Rahul Rekhawar, director of SCERT, “Failing in mathematics or science, and in effect in SSC, often leaves students with no opportunities to continue their education, even if their strength lies elsewhere. This change is designed to ensure that students are not unfairly pushed out of education system and can pursue their academic and career aspirations.” An educator called Heramb Kulkarni is reported to have said, “These subjects serve a purpose beyond mere academic scoring. Lowering standards might adversely affect the overall quality of education in the state.” However, another educator called Vasant Kalpande argued, “There are students who cannot understand mathematics. Many great writers like Munshi Premchand and Hari Narayan Apte dropped out of their respective courses because of mathematics. Hence, if a student wants to pursue arts or humanities, why force them to take up science and maths which they have no aptitude for?”

Pitfall 1: Reliance on Ad Hoc Reasoning

Each of these responses reflect a certain understanding of the purpose of secondary education and of the role of learning mathematics for a student. Rekhawar’s response has a prima facie logic to it until you realize that it is the determination of the exam board to indicate a pass or fail for a subject. This move seems to be helping students who are not doing too well in mathematics and sciences.

But what about students who do not do well in, say, history? If student A scored 34 in history, he would be declared as having failed the exams. Another student B, who scored 20 in mathematics, would be declared as having passed the exams. How would the first student get admission to a mathematics course, when in fact he does not need history beyond Grade 10? You see, if the goal is to ensure students are not unfairly pushed out of the education system, then such a determination must be made after a student decides what he/she wishes to study after Grade 10. So student A could decide, after the exams, that he is not suited to study history and should obtain a pass certification for that subject with an indicator that he should not be permitted to pursue history in the future.

We can see that this is simply an ad hoc approach. The SCERT is not doing anything to favor the students. Rather, in my view, it is simply attempting to jack up the pass percentage so that it appears to be doing a better job.

It is more likely that this move has been made because more students are finding it difficult to understand mathematics in the primary and secondary schools. This means that, either the curriculum is not suited for the purpose of primary and secondary education or the teachers are not teaching in a way that enables student learning. We will return to these twin ideas in the next post.

Pitfall 2: Teaching for Pass Statistics

Kulkarni’s claim that this will lower the quality of education in the state is appalling and my heart goes out to his students. In my view, it does not matter if the pass mark is 35 or 20 or 60. The goal for me when I teach is not to just push a student over some arbitrary line that some bureaucrats have drawn. No! My goal is to ensure that each student learns as much as he/she can from me. My goal is to ensure that each student’s understanding of mathematics is better today than it was yesterday. Teachers who teach based on an arbitrary pass mark are teachers I would not trust because their goal is not the student’s learning but the student’s passing. Lowering the passing mark from 35 to 20 may make it easier for a teacher to push a student over the line. However, if that determines the quality of teaching that a teacher delivers, then we are not doing right by our students.

It is likely that Kulkarni is simply telling us what would happen in some classrooms rather than what would happen in his classroom. In other words, may be he is simply warning us about a possibility he fears might become a reality in the classrooms of less dedicated teachers. But those teachers are anyway only teaching to the current pass mark of 35. Do we really think that their students are actually learning anything? Do we think that a student who is scoring 90 marks in a class taught by a teacher who teaches based on a pass mark is actually learning anything? Is it not more likely that the 90 marks are artificially inflated to prop up the teacher’s performance? And if the 90 marks are genuine, is it not more likely that this reflects the student’s innate mathematical competence?

In other words, if we are afraid that lowering the pass mark will lower the quality of teaching, then we must admit that we have a much bigger problem of accepting teachers who do not care about their student’s learning but more about their own pass statistics.

Pitfall 3: Appealing to the Absurd

Kalpande’s argument is completely an appeal to the absurd. Pointing out someone for whom the system did not work does not mean that the system should be jettisoned. While I do think the system needs a massive overhaul, mentioning great writers like Munshi Premchand and Hari Narayan Apte for whom the system did not work does nothing.

No system will work for everyone. Anyone who thinks he/she can make a system that will work for everyone is smoking something I would not recommend to my students! Every system, precisely because it forms a ‘box’, will result in being unfit for those who do not fit into that ‘box’. The solution is not to arbitrarily change the dimensions of the ‘box’ but to find another ‘box’ in which these people can fit. The very fact that Premchand and Apte succeeded as writers means that they found another ‘box’ that could accommodate their skills and talents.

Moreover, Premchand and Apte are part of a very tiny and exclusive minority. Not every who aspires to become a successful author succeeds in achieving that goal. Perhaps Premchand and Apte were forced to find their true calling precisely because they were pushed out of the ‘box’. In that case, one could possibly argue that, if the pass mark had been 20, neither Premchand nor Apte would have become authors because they would have passed mathematics and would have found some other run of the mill profession within the ‘box’.

Looking Ahead

We have taken a look at some of the common responses in addressing the issue of determining a pass mark for mathematics. It is quite likely that the newspapers, not known for their research rigor, have only interviewed people with loose lips who were willing to shoot from the hip. In other words, it is quite likely that the newspapers have not managed to interview any educator who is willing to think deeply about the issue.

Nevertheless, I am certain that the three responses above are not quite aberrant. However, all the responses reflect a failure to address three crucial issues. First, none of them address the issue of how the pass mark for a subject relates to the purpose of primary and secondary education. After all, if this pass mark is to be reflective of the culmination of the student’s learning over ten years of schooling, in what way does it provide us a measure of that learning? Second, assuming we understand what the purpose of primary and secondary education is, how does the mathematics curriculum reflect or fail to reflect this purpose? Third, in what way are teachers being equipped to teach the subject so that student learning is prioritized? We will look at these three questions in the next post, which, as I announced earlier, will be two weeks from today.