The CBSE’s ‘two-exam scheme’ overcomplicates things

‘A scheme of this magnitude requires careful planning’
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

The draft scheme by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to allow, from 2026, students of Class 10 to take their board examinations twice in an academic session (tentatively scheduled for February/March and in May) has been positioned as a student-friendly reform aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The proposed shift, titled “Draft Scheme for Two Examinations, Class X from 2026”, is meant to reduce the immense pressure on students, offer them an additional opportunity to improve their scores, and move towards a more holistic assessment model. On paper, this seems to be a progressive step, but a closer look at the draft policy reveals several operational, financial, and pedagogical concerns that could ultimately make the system more cumbersome rather than more effective.

Logistical issues, more stress

While the NEP 2020 calls for a shift towards conceptual learning and competency-based assessment, the CBSE’s draft policy focuses primarily on scheduling and logistics. The draft states that board exams will test ‘core capacities/competencies rather than months of coaching and memorization’, but it remains unclear how question papers will be redesigned to reflect this shift. Without further clarity there is a risk that the emphasis on multiple examinations may still lead to ‘coaching-driven preparation’ rather than genuine conceptual learning. Instead of reducing student anxiety, this reform might result in students preparing intensively for two rounds of examinations rather than one, exacerbating rather than alleviating the burden.

The logistical demands of implementing this scheme are daunting. The CBSE’s own data projects that 26.6 lakh students will appear for the Class 10 examinations in 2026. With two examination cycles, the number of answer scripts for evaluation will exceed 1.72 crore. Managing this scale effectively requires a vast pool of evaluators and a system that ensures uniform grading standards.

The overlap with the Class 12 examinations (‘about 20 lakh students in 2026’) adds another layer of administrative complexity, stretching school resources and placing an additional burden on the teachers responsible for evaluation. Schools will have to conduct multiple examinations for the same subjects at different times, secure and manage question papers across multiple test windows, and ensure fairness in the allocation of examination dates. All of this could become a significant logistical challenge.

The policy also raises questions on whether the proposed time gap between the two examinations would be sufficient for meaningful remediation. For example, students who do not perform well in February will have only about two months to prepare for the second attempt in May. This short window makes it difficult for students to make a genuine effort to improve their conceptual understanding. Without structured remedial support from schools, many may just attempt to re-memorise material rather than addressing fundamental gaps in their learning. This contradicts the NEP’s stated vision of reducing dependence on rote learning and fostering deeper understanding.

The issue of examination fees and equity

The financial implications of this scheme could also disproportionately affect economically weaker students. The policy mandates an enhanced (and non-refundable) examination fee to be collected at the time of registration, covering both examination attempts. This means that students who are confident about appearing only once will still have to pay for two examinations, imposing an unnecessary financial burden. For students from marginalised backgrounds, this cost increase could be a significant barrier, contradicting the NEP’s broader goal of equitable education. If private coaching centres begin capitalising on the two-examination format by offering specialised coaching for the second attempt, the policy might further entrench inequalities in educational access.

The impact of this scheme on school calendars and the transition to Class 11 also requires further scrutiny. If results for the second examination are only declared by June-end, this compresses the admission cycle for higher secondary education. Schools typically begin their academic session in April or May, which means that students awaiting the second examination results might face delays in securing admission or finalising subject streams. This could create confusion for both students and school administrators, particularly in States where Class 11 admissions are already a competitive and tightly scheduled process.

What should be done

If the CBSE genuinely wants to align itself with the NEP’s vision, it must go beyond logistical restructuring and ensure that competency-based assessments are effectively implemented. A structured remedial programme should be integrated between the two examinations so that students who perform poorly in the first attempt have a real chance at improvement rather than just getting another opportunity to attempt the same test. The examination fee structure should be revised to ensure that students who opt for only one attempt are not penalised financially.

While there are reports that a pilot is under way in 30 schools in the science and social science subjects, where students are being assessed internally at two levels based on their choice, the ultimate design of the policy must still undergo a thorough review of these pilot outcomes. Any broader implementation should be in phases, beginning with additional pilot programmes in different regions. A trial phase in varied contexts would allow policymakers to assess practical challenges, refine logistics and gather feedback from schools, teachers and students before expanding it to the national level. Without such a phased approach, the scale of this change could lead to serious administrative challenges that disrupt rather than improve the board examination system.

The intention behind the reform is commendable, but intent alone is not enough. A scheme of this magnitude requires careful planning, clear communication, and a genuine commitment to shifting India’s assessment culture towards holistic and meaningful learning. As it stands, the CBSE’s two-examination policy risks becoming another bureaucratic overhaul that increases complexity without addressing the core issues that plague India’s school examination system.

Jehosh Paul is a lawyer and research consultant. The views expressed are personal