PARAKH 2024 survey: Are national assessments hurting learning?

The recently released PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan 2024 (formerly known as the National Achievement Survey) by NCERT assessed over 21 lakh students across 74,000 schools in India. Targeting classes 3, 6, and 9, the survey aims to align national education goals with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 by mapping learning outcomes. While foundational literacy has improved, serious gaps persist in numeracy and comprehension.

Also read: Delhi HC slams DU, orders regularisation of 2 ad hoc teachers

In this conversation with The Federal, Sudha Acharya, Principal of ITL Public School, Delhi, and Prachi Kalra, Associate Professor of Education at Gargi College, Delhi University, delve into the findings and raise concerns about how the data is being interpreted and used.

What are your key takeaways from the PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan 2024 report?

Sudha Acharya: This was a robust, competency-based national assessment aligned with NEP 2020, evaluating students at the end of the foundational, preparatory, and middle stages — Classes 3, 6, and 9, respectively. It wasn't just about individual report cards but about understanding where schools stand. Contextual data like student and teacher questionnaires helped capture school culture, infrastructure, and teacher preparedness.

The idea was to ensure an equitable and inclusive education framework. However, the sample might not have been fully inclusive, which is a limitation.

Also read: Anna University issues notices to 141 engineering colleges, flags deficiencies

What specific trends did the data show in foundational learning?

Acharya: Foundational literacy has improved, which includes language, reading, and expression. But foundational numeracy is still lacking. Children continue to have a fear of math because we don’t expose them to mathematical thinking early enough.

In my school, after this report, we incorporated mathematical storytelling at the foundational stage. Instead of just moral stories, we now use numbers and patterns to build narratives. Children begin processing numbers in a fun and engaging way.

Is the problem with how math is taught in schools?

Acharya: Absolutely. It's not just about fractions or percentages. Even simple operations like addition and subtraction are a challenge. Some Class 6 students couldn’t perform basic math operations. That shows a significant learning gap.

Often, we hear of students scoring over 90 in all subjects except math, where scores hover around 70. This reflects a 30 per cent learning gap that we’ve failed to address. The survey data gives both policymakers and school administrators a reality check.

Prachi, your work focuses on language learning. What do you make of the survey’s language results?

Prachi Kalra: It’s interesting that foundational literacy has now become a subject in itself. But I'm concerned that schools are turning into FLN (Foundational Literacy and Numeracy) labs — pulling students out of regular classrooms and treating FLN as a separate, mechanical exercise.

While students may be improving in decoding and fluency, they're not necessarily learning to derive meaning from texts. The joy of reading and classroom interactions is missing. We’re valuing performance over experience, test scores over comprehension and connection.

What are the risks of using this survey for comparisons among states and districts?

Acharya: I agree with Prachi that such surveys shouldn’t lead to unhealthy competition. Punjab and Himachal Pradesh have shown great improvement, and Delhi has also fared well. But this shouldn’t be about who ranks where.

Punjab, after poor NAS results in 2017, invested heavily in school infrastructure, teacher training, and mock assessments. Himachal has done similar work. But using this data for political point-scoring or pitting states against each other is not the way forward. It’s not a child’s report card — it’s a system check. The data should help improve pedagogy, not stress students or educators.

Do such national surveys have any real value, or should they be discarded?

Kalra: Large-scale surveys like this often result in ranking and competition, which can demoralise students and teachers. They become high-stakes events, influencing major policy changes despite the limitations of MCQs in capturing true student understanding.

An MCQ can’t measure a student’s joy in reading a story. It only shows what a student can’t do — not what they can. Instead, we need smaller, continuous assessments involving teachers. The RTE Act once emphasized Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE), which is a better approach.

Our government schools are severely under-resourced. If we want meaningful progress, we must strengthen teacher training, infrastructure, and access, while giving teachers the space to nurture comprehension and critical thinking.

What final thoughts would you like to share on the relevance of such assessments?

Acharya: Like Prachi said, no large-scale standardised test can truly track a child’s learning progress. We need continuous, classroom-based assessments. At our school, we’ve implemented Holistic Progress Cards (HPCs), involving parents as partners. It has been effective.

But this needs to be scaled. Across India, we still see classrooms with one teacher for multiple grades, or worse, one teacher for 220 students. If this continues, how can any survey reflect the true state of learning?

Theoretically, these assessments are sound — data-driven, inclusive of private and public schools. Punjab and Himachal's performance reflects preparation. However, mock tests and infrastructure investment were not the survey’s original intent.

CBSE’s SAFAL initiative, which tests classes 3, 5, and 8, is based on the same principles. But even there, some schools run mock tests, increasing pressure on students and parents. This was never meant to be a student-level exam. It’s about assessing the system — pedagogy, curriculum, and teaching methods.

The CBSE’s mandate of 50-hour teacher training is a welcome move. But in the end, we need a holistic approach. One exam cannot reflect the health of our entire education system.

(The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)