On Wednesday 06 Oct 2010 10:19:11 am Mahesh Murthy wrote: > The first ever exam that happens in his life will be the IGCSE / IB in the > 10th grade. And here is the IB policy on calculators: > Good for your son.
In any case your experiences with your son do not in any way repesent the experience of the majority in the Indian education system. You are one of the elite who will bypass the system as long as possible. Until job seeking time at least - unless you fall in the category of "moneyed and propertied" so that the "next seven generations" are accounted for. Or he goes abroad. About the Indian education system and calculators: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2708/stories/20100423270809400.htm >Pranjay Jain was diagnosed with dyslexia at the age of 10. The medical > certificate issued by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and > Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, notes that he has a difficulty in arithmetic > and that he has a poor concept of fractions, and he has been advised the > use of a calculator. He claimed protection of his rights on account of > natural disability under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities > (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, > 1995, and related laws. He sought the High Court’s direction to the CBSE to > permit him to use a calculator for the Class XII examinations and for the > All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE) scheduled to be held in > April (also conducted by the CBSE), besides granting him additional time > and a scribe to write the paper. > >The High Court was constrained to reject his prayer on March 2 in view of > the stay granted by the Supreme Court on April 2, 2007, on the operation of > a Bombay High Court order in an SLP filed by the CBSE against the High > Court’s order in Sushil Kumar vs Kendriya Vidyalaya. > >Sushil Kumar, also suffering from dyslexia, had requested that he be > permitted to use a calculator for the Class XII examinations in > mathematics, physics and chemistry. He also wanted parity with dyslexic > students of the HSC Board, Maharashtra, who are permitted to use > calculators in the examinations. The High Court accepted his contention in > its order on February 26, 2007. > >The CBSE argued before the High Court that students suffering from dyslexia > should not opt for mathematics. The High Court described the CBSE’s > approach as unfair and directed it to permit Sushil Kumar and other > students with similar disability to use ordinary calculators for writing > the mathematics paper if they apply for such permission. > >The Supreme Court admitted the CBSE’s appeal against this judgment and > granted a stay on its operation. However, before the CBSE could secure the > stay, it had to permit the use of calculators by such students for the > mathematics examination held on March 22, 2007, in compliance with the > Bombay High Court order. The stay granted by the Supreme Court, therefore, > was misconceived. > >The Bombay High Court had also relied on a 2006 order of a Division Bench of > the High Court directing the HSC Board, Maharashtra, to permit > learning-disabled students to use calculators in the Class XII mathematics, > bookkeeping and accountancy examinations of the Board. This Bench disagreed > with the Board’s view that if even after using a calculator the performance > of learning-disabled children did not improve, they might get more > frustrated and dispirited. More important, this Division Bench decided the > case after considering the report of an expert committee that studied the > issue. Policy for disabled > >In his petition, Pranjay Jain pointed out that the National Policy for > Persons with Disability, announced in February 2006, contained provisions > for facilities for persons suffering from dyslexia, which, among other > things, included the use of a calculator. The policy recommended the > following: > >“Examination system will be modified to make it disabled-friendly by > exemptions such as learning mathematics, learning only one language, etc. > Further, facilities like extra time, use of calculators, use of Clarke’s > tables, scribes, etc., would be provided based on the requirement.” > >Pranjay Jain was allowed to use a calculator for mathematics and the science > subjects in his Class X Board examination by the Council for the Indian > School Certificate Examinations (CISCE). Because of this concession, he > could score 92 marks in mathematics and 83 marks in science. He was also > granted extra time, which helped him to secure good marks in other > subjects. However, the CBSE used his good performance in the Class X > examination to suggest that he was a normal student. Pranjay Jain submitted > to the High Court enough proof to show that whenever such facilities were > withdrawn, as in the Class IX and XI examinations, he scored average marks. > >The CBSE claimed that Class X and XII were basically of secondary-level > standard, where the primary ability of calculation was adjudged. In reply, > Pranjay Jain argued that these examinations in mathematics, physics and > chemistry tested and evaluated the conceptual ability of a child and not > merely the ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide. The primary > ability of calculation was adjudged in classes 2, 3 and 4, he added. > >Pranjay Jain submitted before the Supreme Court that the state had the duty > to make adequate arrangements and provide appropriate facilities to > children with special needs and disabilities. He had a right to pursue > higher education, which, in his special case, was possible only if he was > allowed extra time and the use of a scribe and a calculator in the > examinations. He challenged the CBSE’s decision as violative of his > fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the > Constitution. > >Pranjay Jain further brought to the notice of the court that the CBSE, in > its circulars to schools affiliated to it, specifically advised them “to > provide support through assistive devices”, while explaining its policy > decision with regard to inclusive education for children with disabilities. > The CBSE’s latest circular to schools, sent on December 24, 2009, > reiterates this advice in Guideline 3 of the annexure to the circular. In a > circular dated August 22, 2006, addressed to the heads of all affiliated > schools, regarding concessions to be given to disabled students, the CBSE > mentioned, under Clause 19, that “it is not mandatory for the candidates to > do the calculations themselves”. > >Further, Clause 49 of the national policy states that the Ministry of Human > Resource Development (MHRD) will be the nodal Ministry to coordinate all > matters relating to the education of persons with disabilities. Yet, in > response to a query on this, the MHRD denied that it had any policy on the > use of calculators by dyslexic students in Board examinations. > >Pranjay Jain, in his petition, also highlighted the fact that the prospectus > of the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), run by the MHRD, > permitted the use of calculators by children suffering from dyscalculia, > which is a form of dyslexia. As the NIOS is recognised by the CBSE, its > denial of his plea amounted to a violation of Article 14 (equality before > the law and equal protection of the laws) and also infringed his right to > education as granted by Article 21 and 21-A of the Constitution, Pranjay > Jain submitted to the Supreme Court. shiv
