The school admission system in Bangladesh is at a very crucial juncture. The new ruling to review-and-in fact abolishes the lottery-based system of admission, and once again subject children to testing based on merit, has brought back a debate that has long lived: is it better to leave the future of children to a roll of dice, or a track race?
Recent governmental pronouncements point out that the system of lottery, which was introduced to alleviate serious competition in cities, can be cancelled, and admission tests will become the dominant tool again. However, this change can lead to the replacement of a flawed system with another one unless the discussion is redefined with a more grounded approach the best interests of the child. The lottery admission system was first drafted in response to the tremendous demand in lodging seats in good urban schooling. Random selection seemed to be fair and transparent in places such as Dhaka where thousands of people vie to secure a couple of hundred positions. However, justice and fairness are not the same thing
A lottery looks at the children as equal at the selection point, but it does not pay attention to the structural inequalities. The disadvantaged children who might not have qualified pre-primary education in the first place are brought on to the same level with the better prepared ones. This theoretically sounds fair. Practically, it can imitate inequality by excluding effort, preparation, and ambition of any purpose. More importantly, the system is psychologically harmful. The perception of education as a game of luck by children and families circumvents motivation, agency and faith in institutions. The policymakers themselves have admitted that lottery is not a rational method and can admit those students who are not prepared to participate to college through the simple luck of winning and leaving others behind. Under child protection, a more severe question comes out of this: is randomness a way of protecting the dignity and development of the child? In the case that lottery is a problem, a merit-based admission is by no means a flawless alternative.
The history of competitive entrance examinations made Bangladesh a country of excessive academic pressure. High-stakes testing, which is sometimes accompanied by a ferocious coaching business was administered to children as young as five or six. This setting created anxieties, burnouts and marginality- more so in children who are children of low-income families and cannot afford to coach. Reviving merit-based tests would bring back these evils. Even the governmental officials have been complaining about the growth of coaching companies associated with admission exams.
From an international child protection standpoint, the prevailing admission practices conflict with several core principles. Access to education should not be determined by a child’s socio‑economic background. Admission policies often prioritise competition and performance over children’s overall well‑being and mental health. Subjecting children to intense academic screening at an early age undermines their healthy cognitive and emotional development.
Moreover, merit‑based systems may unintentionally legitimise favouritism, where performance reflects unequal access to resources rather than true ability. The argument in Bangladesh is a binary opposition between lottery and merit. It is a misguided and risky overstatement.
Both systems are flawed in one way or another. Lottery does not even think about hard work and readiness. Merit does not respect inequality and well-being of children. Both fail to consider the root of the problem: the lack of good education and the lack of the child-focused admission system. Balanced and child sensitive models of admission are becoming the leading trends in education systems all over the world.
Contexts vary, but several guiding principles can be identified. Best Interest of the Child (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) where admission systems should eliminate stress, eliminate unhealthy competition and help in the comprehensive growth. Treatment based on equality is not sufficient, systems need to favor the underprivileged by quotas, admission through catchment or affirmative action. The developmental risk has made many countries avoid primary entry exams. Its processes should be transparent, controlled and not manipulated no matter the process be it lottery or selection. The actual cure has nothing to do with selection mechanisms but has to do with decreasing the necessity of selection through enhancing all schools. Bangladesh needs to escape the lottery or merit controversy and come up with a hybrid child-based admission system, one that is just but safe at the same time.
One of the potential frameworks may be admitting children who are in living areas close to schools to minimise inequality and stress. Substitute high-pressure testing with easy preparation testing (not competition), inclusion of rural and marginalised children as well as disadvantaged, not commercialising early education, and dilute the demands in a small number of elite schools. Most importantly, the children should not be viewed as a competitor or a lottery number, but as a right holder.
Education policy is not aimed at filtering children, but at nurturing them. The system that is based on luck devalues effort. Competitive-based systems are detrimental to well-being. They both fail to meet the basic duty of upholding the rights of children.
Bangladesh now can get a chance to reform admission policies but to re-create them. Whether to admit on a lottery basis or on merit is no longer an issue of question. The real issue is: will the system be in the best interest of all children? There will come a time when the reform is not complete until the answer to this is yes.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a Protection Specialist and CEO, Favor Consultancy. E-mail: [email protected]
