The recent proposal by the J&K Board of School Education (JKBOSE) to introduce two levels of Mathematics—Basic and Standard for Class 10th marks a notable shift in the academic ecosystem of Jammu & Kashmir. This move resonates with the vision of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which advocates flexibility, differentiated learning pathways and assessments aligned with student ability but not uniform pressure.

For countless students, mathematics has been more than just a subject; it has been a source of anxiety, sleepless nights, lost confidence and sometimes, the reason they disconnect from academic life altogether. With the proposed model, students now have space to breathe. Those aspiring for careers in science, engineering and mathematics-intensive fields can choose the Standard level, while students whose interests lie elsewhere can opt for the Basic level without feeling academically inferior or restricted.
What makes this reform truly significant is that it confronts a long-overlooked reality: students do not struggle in mathematics because they lack intelligence or potential, but because the education system has historically expected identical outcomes from learners with diverse abilities, interests and learning speeds. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 clearly advocates for equity over equality—a shift from treating all students the same to giving each learner what they genuinely need to succeed. Equality offers the same structure to everyone, while equity offers the right support to the right learner at the right time.
By introducing structured choice, this reform makes space for flexibility without compromising academic dignity or rigor. It ensures that mathematics is no longer a barrier that limits opportunities but a platform that accommodates learners with varied strengths. With this step, mathematics can finally evolve from a subject that instills fear to one that enables understanding, confidence and meaningful success.
Equally reassuring is that this reform does not compromise academic rigor. The syllabus, classroom teaching and internal assessment will remain the same for everyone. The difference lies only in the board examination format, where two separate question papers will cater to the selected difficulty level.
Perhaps the most progressive element of this proposal is the flexibility to reverse decisions. A student initially opting for Basic Mathematics may later appear in the Standard examination compartment if their career aspirations change. This ensures that decisions made at a young age do not become irreversible barriers—an issue that has hindered students in other states following similar models.
However, thoughtful reforms often spark thoughtful concerns. Will the categorization unintentionally create labels “Basic” versus “Standard” students? Will teachers be adequately equipped to guide students through this transition? And crucially, will decisions be based on informed academic reasoning or out of fear, emotional pressure or social comparison?
These questions are not obstacles but they are opportunities for clarity.
In a commendable move, JKBOSE has opened the reform for public feedback, inviting voices from classrooms, homes and academic institutions before final implementation. This transforms the initiative from a top-down directive into a shared educational responsibility, something rarely witnessed in policy processes.
Now the responsibility extends beyond the Board. Parents must prioritize their children’s abilities, interests and long-term aspirations rather than societal comparison. Teachers must serve as academic counsellors, offering guidance rooted in aptitude and dignity. Students must reflect, not rush. Civil society and academia must engage in constructive dialogue, not reactionary critique.
If understood and implemented with empathy, this reform has the power to significantly reduce exam-induced fear, stress and academic trauma, factors increasingly linked to anxiety and depression among adolescents. Yet, if misunderstood or treated casually, it risks becoming a shortcut instead of a meaningful support structure.
This change is not a promise but a possibility. Like all possibilities, its success depends not only on policy design but on the maturity, awareness and wisdom with which society embraces it.
JKBOSE has taken a bold and timely step. Rather than perceiving this move as a separation of “strong” and “weak” learners, we must welcome it as an effort to make education humane, compassionate, flexible and purpose-driven just as envisioned in NEP-2020. The next step lies with us. Whether this reform becomes a milestone in educational improvement or another abandoned idea will be determined by how wisely students, teachers, and the community respond.

Email:-----------------------------------drnisarfarhadku@gmail.com