Best of Both Sides: CBSE's two levels of Math is a bad idea

Indian Express

25-07-2025

The Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) decision to introduce two levels of Mathematics for higher secondary students — basic Maths and Advanced or standard Maths — from 2026-27 represents a misunderstanding of educational equity and excellence. While ostensibly designed to accommodate different student abilities, this bifurcated approach undermines the foundation of comprehensive education and should be reconsidered.
CBSE currently offers Mathematics at two levels in Class X, where both basic and standard levels follow the same syllabus, but the examination for the former is easier. This model, now being extended to higher secondary classes, creates artificial barriers that limit student potential rather than nurture it. The premise that students need 'easier' maths fundamentally misunderstands how mathematical competence develops — through challenge, struggle, and eventual mastery, not through diluted content.
The first flaw lies in the psychological impact of labelling. When students choose 'basic' Mathematics, they internalise a message about their limitations. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where reduced expectations lead to reduced achievement. Research consistently shows that high expectations coupled with appropriate support yield better outcomes than lowered standards disguised as accommodation.
As AI and technology permeate every sector — from agriculture to healthcare, finance to creative industries — mathematical literacy has never been more crucial. Today's students will enter a workforce where algorithmic thinking, data interpretation, and quantitative reasoning are fundamental skills, not optional extras. The CBSE's two-tier system creates a generation of artificially segregated students, leaving many unprepared for an increasingly quantitative world.
While India positions itself as a global technology hub, its premier educational board is creating pathways that detracts from mathematical proficiency. The 'basic' maths track reduces chances of a career in STEM, data science, economics and numerous other fields. This is particularly problematic given that many students will make these choices at 15-16 years of age, before they fully understand career implications or develop mature mathematical thinking.
The argument that students not pursuing Mathematics beyond Class X need only basic skills is flawed in our current context. Whether analysing insurance policies, understanding loan calculations, evaluating investment options, or simply being an informed citizen capable of interpreting statistical claims, comprehensive mathematical literacy is essential for everyone.
Countries leading international Mathematics assessments take notably different approaches. Singapore maintains a unified maths curriculum through secondary education. It teaches students mathematical concepts in a three-step learning process: Concrete, pictorial, and abstract, based on the work of American psychologist Jerome Bruner. Finland maintains a comprehensive Mathematics education without artificial streaming. Its approach focuses on collaborative learning environments where stronger students help weaker ones. The Korean revised school curriculum emphasises contextual learning so that students can grasp basic mathematical concepts and make connections with their everyday lives.
These countries understand that mathematical competence isn't fixed but develops through quality instruction, peer interaction, and persistent effort. Their success suggests that India's approach may be solving the wrong problem.
Building on a system already in place for Mathematics, CBSE will expand its dual-level subject options to Science for Class XI. The existing implementation in classes IX and X provides valuable insights into this policy's shortcomings. Rather than improving mathematical achievement broadly, it has created a two-tier system where students in the 'basic' track often struggle when attempting to transition to higher mathematics.
Under new guidelines, students who completed basic Mathematics will now be permitted to take Mathematics in Class XI, but the head of the institution must ensure that the student has the aptitude and ability. This requirement reveals the system's fundamental flaw — if students completing 'basic' Mathematics need special assessment to continue with standard Mathematics, the former is failing to prepare them adequately.
There are already reports suggesting that many students choose the basic track not because of inherent inability but due to inadequate support, poor teaching quality, or misguided counselling. The solution should be improving mathematical instruction for all students, not creating escape routes that limit opportunities.
Rather than institutionalising different expectations, the CBSE should focus on pedagogical improvements that help all students achieve mathematical competence. This includes investing in teacher training, developing better instructional materials, and creating support systems for struggling students. The goal should be to bring every student up to a high standard.
Mathematical education should prepare students for an uncertain future where quantitative literacy will be essential across professions. Creating artificial barriers through two-tier systems contradicts this imperative. In an era where mathematical literacy determines economic opportunity, India cannot afford to create artificial barriers to achievement. As a postgraduate in Mathematics, it is my conviction that it will be more prudent to abandon this misguided policy and commit to universal mathematical excellence.
The writer, a defence and cyber security analyst, is former country head of General Dynamics