Are Board reforms really reducing stress?

Examinations have always been stressful. Most students undergo this annual exercise to prove their mettle. Over the years, this stress has only increased as peer pressure, parental expectations, and the cost of studies have increased manifold. Add to this the competitive job market, where everyone has to excel to carve a niche for himself or herself. Keeping this in mind, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has come out with a plan that is designed to take some pressure off students. As CBSE prepares to roll out its two-cycle Class X board examination system from 2026, it is being seen as a welcome step, yet some challenges and concerns have also emerged.

The new system of examination-written exams twice a year, scope for improvement, fewer life-defining moments compressed into a single test window-sounds progressive. On the ground, however, where mental health helplines are already overflowing during exam season, the big question being asked is whether it will mitigate pressure or just distribute it over a period of time. The new system mandates two written examination cycles, with the first exam compulsory. Students may opt to reappear in up to three subjects in the second cycle for improvement. Practical and internal assessments, crucially, will be conducted only once across the academic year. A poor performance in practicals can result in failure, regardless of high scores in theory. Subjects with a higher practical weightage will not even offer a second written exam. This is where the reform begins to look rather shaky. While CBSE’s intent is to reduce the “one-shot” anxiety of board exams, the one-time practical assessment reinstates that very pressure through the back door. Instead of dispersing stress, it transfers it into labs, viva voce, and internal evaluations that are often opaque and uneven across schools. For students in under-resourced institutions, or those battling anxiety, illness,  or a single bad practical day, can undo an entire year’s effort. Schools are already conducting pre-boards, revisions, and intensive practical drills. Add to this the fact that missing several subjects in the first cycle disqualifies a student from the second, flexibility exists, but in a limited way. Meanwhile, India’s adolescent mental health crisis is growing. Counselling helplines report spikes during the colder months; cases of burnout, panic attacks, and clinical anxiety are now common at ever-younger ages.

In such a climate, exam reforms cannot operate in isolation from mental health infrastructure. Structural change without emotional support becomes cosmetic. So, what can mitigate the pressure? First, boards must match exam reforms with robust, visible mental health support-trained counsellors in schools, clear referral pathways, and de-stigmatised access to help. Secondly, practical assessments need greater standardisation and transparency to ensure fairness across regions and schools. Students must also understand that the two-cycle system is not for avoiding exams. There is a need to change mindsets as well. Parents do more harm than good when they pressure their children to perform well. Reforms can change exam patterns, but they cannot, by themselves, unburden childhood.