Reforming choice-based education – The Hindu

‘Choice’ and ‘flexibility’ have become the new buzzwords in educational reforms and policy documents. Across the country, educators are focusing — more than ever before — on catering to the individual needs and aspirations of students. The traditional one-size-fits-all model is giving way to an approach that values the diversity of student aptitudes and interests.

The new paradigm encourages multiple pathways, allowing students to pursue combinations of courses and careers that align with their passions and potential. A science major can now minor in music, for instance — a shift symbolic of the move from teacher-centric to learner-centric education. The focus has expanded beyond disciplinary boundaries, embracing multi-disciplinary and even transdisciplinary approaches. The rationale is clear: learning confined to a single discipline risks isolating students from related fields, while cross-disciplinary study offers a larger and fuller perspective of the world. 

However, when such ideals are imposed upon a rigid academic framework like ours, the choice offered is Hobson’s choice — choice in name only. Teacher workload, conventional pedagogy, poor student to teacher ratios, and outdated evaluation systems conspire to reduce flexibility to a mere paper promise.

The illusion of choice

The introduction of the Choice-Based Credit and Semester System (CBCSS) in Kerala in 2009 was heralded as a landmark reform meant to offer students more freedom. In theory, credits were to reflect weekly teaching hours. In practice, the system accommodated anomalies: a four-credit course could run for five hours a week, while a two-credit course might require just four hours. Such inconsistencies were quietly ignored to maintain the illusion of freedom. Moreover, the so-called buffet of choices were hardly choices in the real sense. Beyond a set of compulsory core courses, students were offered a limited selection of ‘electives’, often chosen by the departments themselves. The much-advertised “open course” — a two-credit paper in the fifth semester offered to students of other departments — was the only semblance of choice. Thus, despite the rhetoric, genuine academic freedom remained a distant dream.

The same rhetoric of flexibility once again took centre stage, with the launch of the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP) in Kerala in 2024, as mandated by the National Education Policy, 2020. The new structure allowed students to switch majors and minors, theoretically enhancing autonomy. Yet, unlike earlier curriculum changes, this reform demanded deep structural changes, making it highly challenging. The traditional idea of teachers delivering lectures in fixed classrooms gave way to students moving across departments in search of suitable courses and teachers.

It goes without saying that structural changes pose insurmountable challenges. A case in point was a clause in the university regulations of Kerala prohibiting students from choosing minors from allied disciplines. While it was intended to promote interdisciplinary learning, it inadvertently hindered specialisation.

Disciplines like Commerce and Functional English, which had previously allowed aligned minors, found this rule counterproductive — a restriction masquerading as choice.

Need for systemic changes

For any reform to succeed, systemic changes are essential. During the author’s tenure as Chairperson of the Board of Studies in English at the University of Calicut in 2017, two key innovations were introduced.

The first was a skill-oriented question paper for the course on Communication Skills. The traditional format, filled with essay questions on theories and models, failed to test actual communication ability. It was replaced with a purely activity-based paper designed to assess real skills. Yet even this change ran into bureaucratic hurdles: permission for an accompanying answer booklet was denied on “confidentiality” grounds, forcing evaluators to flip endlessly between question papers (which carried more than twice the number of questions of its earlier counterpart) and answer sheets. 

The second innovation was a course titled ‘Introducing Literature’ — a hands-on, concept-driven paper designed to teach how to read literature rather than merely what to read. Instead of memorising texts and answering questions on the basis of prescribed texts, students were taught literary concepts and were required to interpret unseen passages from linguistic, aesthetic and political angles. Ironically, this radical step met more resistance from teachers than students, as it demanded a shift from conventional methods to concept-based teaching, teaching us the valuable lesson that teacher preparedness and training should have been ensured prior to rolling out the reforms. 

Facing ground realities

Today, the FYUGP aspires to make undergraduate education more skill-based, research-oriented, and autonomous, with a modest 10% autonomy given to teachers for framing syllabi wherein each teacher can pitch in their innovative ideas. Yet, at the ground level, classrooms and methodology remain largely unchanged. One can only reap the results if adequate teacher training is provided, if class sizes are smaller, and if research were to be integrated into teaching workloads.

Abida Farooqui is a Senate Member of the University of Calicut, and Professor and Head, P.G and Research Department of English, Govt. Arts & Science College, Kondotty

Published – March 12, 2026 12:24 am IST