The government's decision to abolish the long-standing lottery based school admission system has ignited a contentious national debate, with educationists, rights advocates and guardians raising serious constitutional, pedagogical and governance concerns.
Education Minister ANM Ehsanul Haque Milon defended the move, stating, "Lottery in admissions to educational institutions is like gambling, lottery cannot be a system for admissions. We are going to arrange for a test instead of a lottery in the admission test that is conducted."
The proposed introduction of admission tests at entry level including Class-One has drawn strong opposition. Critics argue that subjecting young children to competitive evaluation is inappropriate and educationally unsound. Experts maintain that there is no meaningful difference in talent at such an early stage and that testing fosters unnecessary competition, coaching dependency and psychological pressure. It also creates fear and reluctance towards schooling, whereas the lottery system had largely spared children such stress. Professor Kamrul Hasan Mamun argued that systemic inequality among public schools lies at the root of the problem.
"Students from the area will study in the school of that area. This is the case all over the world," he said, emphasising that equal standards across institutions would render both lottery and competitive admissions redundant. He further warned, "This admission test is meant to verify the child's talent. Failing it means tagging the child as he cannot. Children should not be traumatised in this way. It is discourteous to tag students as 'talented' in primary schools or primary classes."
Emeritus Professor Manjur Ahmed described admission testing as discriminatory. "Admission tests mean unequal competition. A child whose family is well off and can send him to a good coaching centre will be ahead in the exam. On the other hand, children from rural or lower class families will be left out due to lack of preparation despite their talent," he said.
Responding to criticism, the minister sought to reassure stakeholders, stating, "There is no question of testing talent in Class-One. We will conduct the test in a very simple way. We will not try to make neurosurgeons in Class-One."
The decision has also revived concerns over the re-emergence of admission trade and coaching economy. In the past, aggressive coaching advertisements and private tutoring imposed significant financial burdens on families. These practices largely disappeared after the introduction of the lottery system, which reduced both coaching dependency and household expenditure.
Leaders of the National Education Culture Movement warns that abolishing the lottery may fuel corruption, nepotism and the expansion of coaching businesses. The Samajtantrik Chhatra Front similarly condemned the move, describing it as part of a broader push to commercialise education.
Educationist Rasheda K Chowdhury criticised the policy shift, arguing that ground realities were not adequately assessed. "The lottery was mainly introduced to address admission pressure in famous urban schools. We saw coaching advertisements everywhere before, but after the lottery, it was no longer seen," she said.
Addressing concerns, the minister said, "There will be no coaching business. This is the initial stage. If someone wants to do coaching business with admission tests, the government will not sit by. The government will arrange 'in house' coaching."
As a structural remedy, experts including Rasheda K Chowdhury advocate a mandatory 'catchment based' admission framework under which students attend schools within their locality. They argue that ensuring parity in educational quality would eliminate the need for both exams and lotteries, as observed in countries such as Finland.
The minister has indicated that a zoning system will be introduced gradually.
Historically, primary level admission tests created intense competition, fostered coaching dependence and were plagued by allegations of irregularities, corruption and nepotism, making access to reputed schools largely unattainable for ordinary and disadvantaged students and drawing sustained criticism. In response, the lottery system was introduced in 2010 for Class One admissions in primary schools attached to government secondary institutions, based on the principle that children at the outset of their education should not face examination pressure, while higher classes remained exam based. Following an investigation into a student death at Viqarunnisa Noon School and College in 2018, former Education Minister Nurul Islam Nahid revealed that admission to the first grade cost Tk 10 lakh and stated, "We have introduced a lottery system to stop that."
During the Covid pandemic, a nationwide digital lottery replaced admission tests for Classes One to Nine in government schools in 2021 and was extended to private institutions in the same year. Under the latest admission policy amended in December 2025 in line with the National Education Policy 2010, children aged between five and seven are eligible for Class One admission, but experts and many parents argue that children in this age group should not be subjected to examinations at the very beginning of their educational journey.
Education expert Mohammad Mojibur Rahman argued that neither lottery nor testing offers a sustainable solution, advocating instead for locality based admissions. "The quality of schools needs to be improved so that students can study in schools in their own area. Then people from Mirpur will stop trying to get their children admitted to Viqarunnisa. Teaching children everything and making them sit for admission tests or determining their fate through lottery neither should be done," he said.
The unfolding debate reflects a deeper ideological contest between merit based selection and equitable access, raising critical questions about the future direction of Bangladesh's education governance.
