Board exam results: Farcical spiking and delusion of high percentages

However, over a period of time, it morphed into an exercise to enable the examinees of these Boards to secure admission in Central Universities (primarily Delhi University). Marks obtained in the Board examinations were being used by the Universities as the benchmark.

Broadly speaking, a child who got 16 percent marks in a particular subject could pass it with grace marks of around 5 percent and the corresponding figure in case of all subjects came to around 10 percent.

Thus, we had a situation where students who should have been detained by a long margin passed easily. There was an associated problem.

Almost every student used to get 10 percent marks more than they actually deserved. This led to a situation where a large number of students scored 95 percent in the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) as this was the ceiling of spiking set by the Board.

Effectively every student who used to score between 85 percent and 95 percent ended up getting 95 percent. What could be a greater farce!

In some other Boards, the ceiling was as high as 100 percent. This resulted in students getting 100 percent even in languages (English and Hindi). Shakespeare would indeed be turning in his grave.

However, the situation was not considered grave enough in India as the present was benefitting at the cost of the future.

Despite this travesty, the all India pass percentage of 80 percent in CBSE was a poor reflection on our education system (It is a dramatic 99.37 percent this year).

The pass percentage would have plummeted substantially had this inflation of marks been disallowed. No one was prepared to face the facts. The Chairman of a State Board who chose to face the facts and disallowed inflated marking was sacked.

The moderation policy of CBSE was built around the following few tenets:

To compensate the candidates for the difficulties experienced in solving the question in a specified time due to misinterpretation/ambiguity of questions and errors, if any, leading to a multiplicity of performance, and causing constraints on the consumption of time for other questions.

To compensate for the vagaries and to bring uniformity in the evaluation process.

To bring parity on account of the element of subjectivity involved in the evaluation.

To level up the mean achievements in the set-wise performance of the candidates attributable to the difference in the difficulty level of different sets of question papers in the multiple sets scheme.

To maintain a near parity of pass percentage of the candidates in the current year vis-à-vis preceding years, subject-wise, and overall.

To safeguard against arbitrary and careless evaluation due to the variance in the competency of examiners.

The giveaway was point 5 that indicated ‘to maintain a near parity of pass percentage of the candidates in the current year vis-à-vis preceding years, subject-wise and overall.’

The farcical pass percentage was allowed to continue because of this provision. A mistake once committed was mandated to be perpetuated. It continued on account of another reason. Every stakeholder was happy with this delusion.

Students were obviously happy because they got more marks. They were consciously oblivious of the fact that they didn’t deserve as many marks. The teachers were happy because, on average, each child scored more. The school could claim distinction even though it didn’t actually exist. The governments were happy because the State was seen to be performing well.

There was nothing legally wrong with what was happening. But to my mind, it was not only ethically incorrect, but it was also creating a delusion in all stakeholders’ minds and this was not good for the country. Hence, it needed to be corrected.

A strategy was evolved to take care of this malaise. During my visits to the States and Union Territories, the issue was discussed with the concerned authorities.

Almost everyone agreed that this pernicious practice should be stopped but they were compelled to continue as others would not stop. As an informal consensus had been built, I decided to convene a national meet to discuss the issue. The informal consensus was formally endorsed.

Based on this consensus, the respective State governments dispensed with the spiking of marks in the name of moderation. In Karnataka, the pass percentage dropped by around 8 percent. The Union Minister even complimented the State government for biting the bullet. In Punjab, the pass percentage fell by more than 10 percent. Many other states chose to face the truth as well.

CBSE was also one of the culprits that had joined the bandwagon of spikers. However, consequent to the decision taken in the meeting held on 24th April, the organisation was now gearing up to do away with spiking.

But influential parents of the wards in Delhi were not prepared to give up the illusion of a high percentage based on farcical spiking. Ironically, the list included politicians, civil servants, and advocates whose children had appeared in standard XII and were not prepared to give up the bonanza of spiked marks.

The media too got involved and the interested parties managed to convey half-truths. A petition was filed in the High Court as well and it was alleged that CBSE was changing the ‘goal post’ midway.

It was difficult to fathom how doing away with across-the-board spiking of marks could be construed as ‘changing the goal post’. The High Court ordered that moderation of marks should continue the way it had been done during the previous years. There was no mention of spiking in the order. CBSE chose to follow the orders in letter and spirit on the direction of the Union Minister. Everyone seemed to be happy as the pass percentage did not drop.

What was in fact sacrificed was a principled stand to do away with spiking. To me, it was a huge embarrassment as we had failed to live up to our words. I also wonder today about the actual academic performances of students assessed under this system.

Fortunately, the National Education Policy attempts to address the issue as it proposes to hold entrance exams for University admissions. Hence, one of the primary causes for ‘spiking’ marks will hopefully become redundant.