If a lesson on water conservation is turned into an activity where students collect rainwater or track water use at home, they will remember it for life
When the students of Grade 3 under the Goa Board’s State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) sat for their first common paper, no one expected tears. Yet soon after the exam, parents voiced their distress. Many said their children had come home crying, unable to answer the paper. The outcry was swift. Fingers were pointed at the Board, the teachers, even the new education policies. But before we rush to assign blame, we must pause to ask: what really went wrong, and how can it be set right?
The introduction of a uniform paper was not, in itself, a bad idea. On the contrary, the intent was fair and forward-looking. The Goa Board wanted to ensure that all children, no matter which school they attend, are assessed on equal footing. It was also in keeping with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which aims to make children think, not just recall. So why did it upset so many?
Perhaps because change, however well-meaning, can be unsettling when it arrives suddenly. The new question format demanded that children reason, apply, and infer. Were they adequately trained for it?
The responsibility here seems to be shared. If the SCERT planned to bring in a new pattern of questioning, it should have prepared the ground first. Workshops, model papers, and classroom demonstrations should have preceded the exam. Primary teachers, in particular, need training in competency-based learning. Teacher readiness determines student readiness. When teachers themselves feel unsure about what is expected, the confusion passes on to the classroom.
If schools had made the effort to train teachers continuously, bring in activity-based learning, and expose students to application-oriented exercises, this transition would not have come as such a shock.
Classroom realities also cannot be ignored. Many schools have overcrowded classes, sometimes with 40 to 50 children. In such an environment, even the most sincere teacher cannot give every child individual attention. Add to that the diversity of students: different languages, backgrounds, and home environments. Some children have parental help at home; others have none. How can all of them cope equally when suddenly asked to apply concepts they have only memorized before? Smaller classes, teacher assistants, and after-school remedial support would help bridge this gap.
The next concern is the exam content itself. While it is important to test comprehension, the questions must be worded simply enough for eight-year-olds to understand. Difficult does not always mean better. A well-structured question should challenge the mind without confusing the child. The SCERT must ensure that papers are child-friendly, not anxiety-inducing. When an exam leaves a child feeling defeated instead of encouraged, it fails in its most basic purpose: to test learning, not endurance.
Parents, too, have a part to play. Many parents today are deeply anxious about their children’s results, sometimes more than the children themselves. This anxiety easily transfers to the child. A small mistake, a mark less than expected, becomes a crisis at home. The goal of education must not be to make children fear exams, but to help them enjoy learning. Parents, teachers, and the Board must work together to build confidence, not competition, in the early years.
The first common exam under SCERT should not be seen as a failure, but as a learning opportunity. It has shown where the cracks are, and that is useful. The next step is to fix them. The SCERT can start by providing orientation to teachers well before exams, sharing model papers early, and seeking feedback from schools after each test cycle. Schools, on their part, can integrate application-based learning into daily classroom practice, so that by the time exams arrive, students are comfortable with such questions.
The government, too, can help by creating regional teacher-resource centres that provide on-ground academic support. Demonstrating how lessons can be made interactive would help teachers translate the spirit of NEP into real classroom experience. Teaching through play, storytelling, and real-life examples can make even abstract concepts come alive for children. If a lesson on water conservation is turned into an activity where students collect rainwater or track water use at home, they will remember it for life.
It would also make sense to engage parents through short awareness sessions. Once parents understand that application-based tests are designed to help their children think rather than just memorize, they will view the new system not as a threat but as progress. Many of today’s parents grew up under the old system, where marks were everything and thinking differently was not rewarded. They too need to unlearn some of those old fears.
Education reform is never a one-day job. It is a gradual process of adaptation and understanding. That some children found the first common paper difficult does not mean the idea was wrong. Given time, support, and communication, both teachers and students will adjust. By the next exam, Goa’s schools may well find themselves in a stronger position, more aligned with the NEP’s national vision.
After all, the purpose of the NEP is not just to create good exam-takers but to nurture thoughtful, adaptable, and creative young minds; children who can face life with understanding, not fear. Learning must prepare them to solve real problems, to think for themselves, and to see knowledge as something living and useful, not a burden to memorize.
The third standard exam may have led to tears this time, but it could also mark the beginning of something better; an education system that truly prepares our children for the world beyond the classroom. The first step toward progress is always the hardest, but it is also the most necessary.
