The Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) recent directive to schools on the mandatory introduction of a third language in the curriculum is poorly conceived and difficult to implement. In a May 15 circular, the Board told over 33,000 schools to initiate steps to teach a third language in Class 9, starting July 1. It stipulates that at least two of the three languages students learn under the three-language formula must be native Indian languages; the options include Hindi and Sanskrit. This order, issued at the beginning of the school year, will disrupt the academic programme and greatly inconvenience students, teachers, parents, and schools. Requiring students to learn what is essentially a new subject at an advanced stage of schooling can cause poor learning outcomes.

It is difficult to imagine how the CBSE could take such an arbitrary decision that has serious consequences for the students. The move is particularly harsh on those who have been learning foreign languages and are now expected to start afresh with another language. It will place a burden on the students, which will reflect on their overall performance, given the additional time the new subject demands. Most schools lack the infrastructure to ensure that the new subject is taught well. Textbooks are unavailable, and schools lack trained teachers. The CBSE has told schools to make temporary arrangements, such as assigning the work to teachers in other subjects who have “functional proficiency” in the additional language. It also recommended Class 6 textbooks, supplemented with local material, to be used in Class 9.

The Board is reported to have stated, on April 9, that the compulsory three-language requirement for Class 9 would not be implemented until the 2029-30 academic year. What pushed it to reverse this decision, in just over a month? The move is also seen as going against the NEP (National Education Policy)’s position on teaching of languages and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023. The CBSE held no consultations before taking this critical decision. The haste defies logic. Hindi is obviously the main beneficiary of the directive. Any move to teach Hindi in schools is likely to become contentious in non-Hindi states, and the manner in which it is sought to be done is particularly so. The Board has stuck to its position despite credible apprehensions and protests. It cannot lose sight of its primary concern – the students and their interests – and must withdraw this directive. (Source: DH)