With teachers refusing to be cowed down by threats of contempt of court and disciplinary action and continuing their boycott of Plus Two Chemistry valuation for the third straight day on Saturday, the General Education department seems to have softened its stance.
After denying that there were anomalies in the answer scheme provided for the valuation and blaming a section of teachers of “muddying the waters”, Minister for General Education V. Sivankutty appeared to strike a conciliatory tone. In a statement issued after convening a meeting of officials of the General Education department on Saturday evening, the Minister said any shortcomings in the answer scheme published on the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education portal would be examined.
An expert committee appointed by the government will examine the answer scheme, and a final decision taken on the basis of its recommendation. It is learnt that a scrutiny had found that eight questions in the Chemistry paper had multiple answers, and hence the teachers’ arguments had merit. At the same time, a very liberal evaluation too could not be accepted, officials said.
The Minister, in his statement, said a fair valuation of answer scripts would be ensured. Students would be awarded the marks they deserved, and there was no need for anxiety on this count.
In various districts, Plus Two Chemistry teachers who had reached valuation camps the first two days did not turn up on Saturday in protest against the government’s refusal to lend an ear to their concern. The government stance that they resume valuation before a discussion was possible was unacceptable, they said, adding that all Chemistry teachers, irrespective of organisation affiliations, were united on the issue.
The scheme provided by the government contained errors and lacked clarity, and valuation of answer scripts based on it would be a disservice to the students. Chemistry answer papers were subjected to double valuation, and any difference in the marks awarded could land the teachers in trouble, they said.
The answer key prepared by the teacher who had set the question paper had been examined by a panel of teachers. The final scheme prepared took into account the anomalies as well as students’ concerns about low marks in Chemistry.
The General Education department, however, had rejected the scheme, claiming it provided scope for awarding more marks than what was stipulated and deserved, and instead sent out the answer key prepared by the teacher who had set the question paper. The department had also issued memos to 12 teachers who had prepared the answer scheme.
