Bangalore: The pattern of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) examination, which impacts thousands of students across the State, is all set for a major revamp. However, there seems to be no clarity on who is vested with the official authority to decide on a new pattern. The confusion begins with the official website of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (KSEEB) which has on display two parallel reports.
The website carries the report of the expert committee set up by the Government to review the examination pattern of SSLC, under the chairmanship of S. Srikanta Swami. This is an elaborate 34-page report, complete with names of the 10 appointed members, method of field work, evaluation, and final recommendations.
Alongside it is another report which is simply termed “A compiled report on revising SSLC question paper” which gives no clues about its authorship. It is a four-page extract (page numbered 13 to 16) with suggestions on how each question paper has to be broken into categories of how many marks each. This is all the more curious because the people have been invited to file objections, if any, to the second set of recommendations, before July 22.
Director, KSEEB, D.S. Rajanna, told The Hindu that the second report was compiled by the Centre for Education and Social Studies (CESS), a non-governmental organisation. This move has come as a surprise to Dr. Swami, the chairperson of the official committee. “We had done the compilation and analysis after thorough work at the grassroots in the 33 educational districts after discussions with students, parents, teachers and educational experts,” he said. He felt that while the suggestions of the committee headed by him could have been reviewed by officials, setting up a parallel committee with an NGO “is undesirable.”
“The old report has been on the website for a long time. The CESS report is the latest one for which we have called objections,” said Mr. Rajanna. When asked if this meant that the official report by Dr. Swami had been put aside in favour of the new one, he said he was “not aware of what the Government would decide”.