The result of the survey provides information on students’ learning levels, which also
serves to indicate the health of the education system. Credit: iStock Images
As we move towards adopting an outcomes-based education, there is a growing concern
among all stakeholders about what students are learning at school. Therefore, the
National and State Achievement Surveys (henceforth NAS/SAS) were instituted with the
sole purpose of measuring what students know and can do by measuring their
performance at grades 3, 5, and 8 against expected learning outcomes (LOs) at these
stages of school.
The result of the survey provides information on students’ learning levels, which also
serves to indicate the health of the education system.
Currently, the National/State Achievement Surveys are sample-based, representing all
types of schools—government, aided, and private. Besides students’ performance data, the
survey collects other relevant data like school environment, teaching methods, and
students’ demographics. The data helps the government identify gaps in learning where
they exist across school, district, state, and national levels. This information aids
educational functionaries in making important decisions about remedial measures to be
taken, resource allocation to schools in need, professional development for teachers, as
well as informed policy making. It is therefore extremely important that the data captured
in the survey is a true reflection of ground realities so that these decisions are not
misguided.

Ideally, a survey needs to be administered in a manner that yields as candid responses as
possible, reflecting the status quo. However, due to the logistic and administrative
constraints that such large-scale surveys entail, the dates for the NAS as well as the
schools and students who are involved are public knowledge.
As a result, there is a propensity for all stakeholders to ‘prepare’ students to obtain better
results. The current trend of announcing learning outcomes to be tested, creating
‘workbooks’, ‘worksheets’, ‘question banks’ and arranging for ‘tutorials’ are deleterious
practices that encourage teaching to the test, promote rote learning, and result in inflated
scores that neither reflect students’ actual competencies nor capture the effectiveness of
the education system, thereby defeating the very purpose of conducting the survey.
It is worthwhile to scrutinise why such practices have gained prevalence. For the most
part, stakeholder education is lacking. Very few people are aware of the purpose of the
surveys—so much so that they are often referred to as exams, bringing with them the
pressure to perform not just for students and teachers but also for district and school
leaders. Besides the social desirability factor, there is an equally strong factor of
apprehension and anxiety at play. Teachers, school heads, and other functionaries are
fearful of the public shaming and punitive action they might face if the results of the
survey are below expectations. As a result, there is an inclination to ensure their students
and schools do well by engaging in drills on questions related to the specific learning
outcomes to be tested.

Similarly, a very misguided district or state could attempt to ‘improve’ scores on NAS/
SAS by directing schools to ‘prepare’ students using materials created for this specific
purpose. Unfortunately, the apparent ‘gains’ that such quick fix measures produce are
akin to creating Potemkin villages. They create the false impression of high performance
that is misleading and prevents timely interventions that could address the learning gaps
that exist.
Educators and others concerned must ensure these practices are nipped before they are
entrenched in the system and become an evil that will be hard to expunge. While
spreading awareness about the purpose of NAS is an obvious step in this direction,
perhaps a more effective measure would be to iterate that the data will be used to identify
schools in need of developmental support and not punitive action. This will eliminate the
fear of humiliation that drives teachers, school leaders, and district officials to adopt
coaching practices for improving their scores. When reassured that under-achievement on
the test will not be seen as their personal ‘failure’ but will bring them the help and support
they need to improve, they are likely to ensure the survey results are a more accurate
representation of students’ learning levels.
This approach will also help the government at various levels to be better informed about
the actual status of student learning and make evidence-based decisions about how
learning levels can be improved. It can save a lot of time, effort, and resources by ensuring
the right support is extended to places and people who need it most. Supporting low-performing districts and schools with capacity-building initiatives on teaching methods, formative assessments, and creating equitable learning cultures can truly boost learning levels over time and improve systemic health in a sustainable way.