Before analyzing the actual outcome of the new CBSE pattern, let us first understand the meaning and guidelines of the system, The CCE or Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation scheme refers to a school-based evaluation of students that covers all the aspects of a student’s development. Continuous means regular assessments, frequency of unit testing, applying corrective measures and giving feedback to teachers and students for their self-evaluation, etc. Comprehensive on the other hand attempts to cover both the scholastic and the co-scholastic aspects of a student’s growth and development – with both these aspects of the evaluation process being assessed through Formative and Summative Assessments. In brief, Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation refers to a system of school based assessment that covers all aspects of student’s development.
Now what exactly is the point of this new CCE pattern which is an acronym for the new plan of CBSE?
I completely agree that CBSE does not have any bad intention towards the students. I even agree that all that it is trying to do is to make the students more interested in their studies and ultimately improve the educative standard of India but at the same time, it seems that CBSE considers the students really weak who cannot handle the pressure of studies. With the decrease in pressure of studies months of the year
, it has also reduced the level of Healthy competition among the students I appreciate the implementation of the respective system which has avoided mental torture to the students by their parents and the suicidal attempts of our immature children to a certain extent.
The emphasis on conceptual clarification through experimental learning in the classroom will increase resulting in a lot of project work i. e. more writing work in all the subjects in place of listening. It will help the learners to develop holistically in terms of personality by also focusing on the co-scholastic aspects; here it should be kept in mind that the role of the teacher is very important. He must work honestly and diligently, only then the real purpose of this evaluation system can be achieved. Formative assessment, summative assessment, portfolio assessment, “authentic” assessment- and, yes, standardized assessment, are all used to determine whether students are learning. Why, then, would teachers not argue for the same approaches to evaluating their own performance in the classroom?
Systemically, education administrators determine what students should know, when they should know it, and how they should be able to demonstrate learning on a single standardized test. However, they insist that students not be graded simply on such standardized assessments of learning. So, why should administrators determine teacher performance on the results of a single, standardized measure? And why are teacher’s union leaders not fighting for simply the same kind of evaluation for teachers that have been developed and deemed appropriate for students?
With current legislation, teacher performance in most states is evaluated using standardized measures of student performance. If students do well on the state’s standardized tests, teachers will be retained. If not, teachers can be fired and schools may suffer re-staffing, re-formulation, or closure. Currently, teacher performance is evaluated on little more than student outcomes on a single measure, not on the multiple measures of learning that are used in classrooms.
Given these realities, one might ask, “Why are teachers and their union representatives not arguing for the same measures used to evaluate student performance, to evaluate teacher performance? “, Given the diverse ability and preparation levels found in any current classroom, diverse evaluation measures are appropriate. Why not the same for teachers? Teacher preparation is also diverse, as is teacher ability. School environments offer diverse opportunities, and present diverse challenges in access to computers, science labs, math, and language instruction.
If “authentic” assessment is good for students, why should it not be used to evaluate teacher performance? Why shouldn’t observation, portfolio, lesson-demonstration, growth from one marking period to another (measured in teacher-created rubrics), and self-evaluation, all contribute to re-hiring, promotion, and salary increase?
Such evaluation measures could include, for example, an analysis of the lesson plan content prepared for each marking period. Do the lessons contain sequential content? Has there been adequate preparation for the delivery of the content in each lesson? Have there been provisions in each lesson to reach every student in the way s/he learns best? Can the lesson be extended, enhanced for those students who are ahead, and does it allow for review for those who need it? Does the teacher “deliver” or “dictate” the lesson, or involve the students interactively in questioning, and participating in ways that promote deeper understanding?