By Dipak Kurmi
Examinations have always occupied a fraught space in the lives of students, functioning not merely as academic assessments but as social rituals laden with expectations, comparisons, and consequences. Over the years, the stress associated with examinations has intensified, shaped by mounting peer competition, heightened parental ambition, and the ever-rising cost of education. In an economy marked by scarce opportunities and relentless competition, academic performance is increasingly viewed as the primary gateway to security and social mobility. Against this backdrop, the Central Board of Secondary Education’s decision to introduce a two-cycle Class X board examination system from 2026 has been widely welcomed as a reform intended to soften the psychological blow of high-stakes testing. The promise of written examinations held twice a year, with an opportunity for improvement and fewer life-defining outcomes compressed into a single test window, carries the language of progress. Yet, as with many structural reforms, the gap between intent and impact raises critical questions about whether this new system will genuinely alleviate stress or merely redistribute it across the academic calendar.
At first glance, the architecture of the two-cycle system appears student-friendly. The first written examination will be compulsory, while the second cycle offers students the option to reappear in up to three subjects to improve their scores. This framework ostensibly moves away from the unforgiving one-shot model that has long defined board examinations in India. In theory, it acknowledges that a single examination cannot fully capture a student’s abilities, particularly in a phase of adolescence marked by emotional volatility and uneven performance. However, this promise of flexibility is circumscribed by important caveats. Practical and internal assessments, which carry significant weight in several subjects, will be conducted only once during the academic year. This means that regardless of how well a student performs in the written examinations, a poor showing in practicals can lead to failure. Compounding this concern is the fact that subjects with a higher practical weightage will not even offer a second written examination cycle, effectively reinstating a high-stakes, one-time evaluation through a different route.
This aspect of the reform exposes a fundamental contradiction. While CBSE’s stated objective is to reduce the anxiety associated with a single decisive exam, the one-time practical assessment reintroduces the same pressure through laboratories, viva voce examinations, and internal evaluations. In practice, stress is not eliminated but displaced. The burden shifts from the examination hall to spaces that are often less standardised and more opaque. Practical assessments can vary widely in quality and fairness across schools, influenced by differences in infrastructure, teacher training, and institutional culture. For students studying in under-resourced schools, or those grappling with anxiety, illness, or personal crises, a single bad day in the laboratory can negate an entire year’s academic effort. Instead of offering a safety net, the system risks amplifying inequality, privileging students from better-equipped institutions while leaving others exposed to arbitrary outcomes.
The operational realities within schools further complicate the picture. Even before the board examinations, students are subjected to a relentless cycle of pre-boards, revision tests, mock examinations, and intensive practical drills. The introduction of two written cycles does not automatically reduce this load; in many cases, it may extend it. The requirement that students must appear in the first cycle, combined with the rule that missing several subjects can disqualify them from the second, means that flexibility exists only within narrow limits. Far from easing pressure, the academic year risks becoming a prolonged period of examination readiness, with little room for recovery or reflection. In such an environment, the promise of reduced stress may ring hollow, particularly for students already operating at the edge of emotional exhaustion.
These concerns assume even greater significance when placed within the broader context of India’s adolescent mental health crisis. Counselling helplines and mental health professionals consistently report sharp spikes in distress calls during board examination months. Burnout, panic attacks, sleep disorders, and clinical anxiety are no longer rare occurrences confined to a small minority; they are increasingly common experiences among students at ever-younger ages. In extreme cases, academic pressure has been linked to self-harm and suicide, a grim reminder that examination systems do not exist in a psychological vacuum. In such a climate, exam reforms cannot function as isolated administrative adjustments. Structural change without parallel investment in emotional and psychological support risks becoming cosmetic, addressing surface-level symptoms while leaving deeper causes untouched.
If the two-cycle examination system is to fulfil its stated promise, it must be accompanied by a visible and robust mental health infrastructure within schools. Trained counsellors should not be optional add-ons but integral members of the educational ecosystem, equipped to identify distress early and guide students toward appropriate support. Clear referral pathways, partnerships with mental health professionals, and sustained efforts to de-stigmatise seeking help are essential. Equally important is the need to bring greater standardisation and transparency to practical and internal assessments. Clear guidelines, external moderation, and accountability mechanisms can help ensure that a student’s future is not disproportionately shaped by subjective or uneven evaluation practices. Without such safeguards, the shift away from a single written exam risks being undermined by an equally unforgiving practical assessment regime.
Beyond institutional reforms, there is also a pressing need for a cultural shift in how examinations are perceived. The two-cycle system is not designed to enable avoidance or complacency, yet it will only succeed if students, parents, and schools internalise its spirit rather than treating it as another arena for maximal performance. Parental pressure, often rooted in fear and social comparison, can do more harm than good, transforming academic milestones into sources of chronic stress. Reforms can modify exam patterns and timelines, but they cannot, by themselves, unburden childhood. That responsibility lies with society at large, which must learn to value learning over ranking and resilience over relentless achievement. Only then can examination reforms move beyond administrative tinkering to become genuine instruments of student well-being.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
