Fear of failure shapes how students, parents, and teachers interact in Bangladeshi schools — but what does the evidence really say?
In this episode, we explore the latest research on motivation and assessment, highlights key findings from studies on exam pressure,
and asks how schools can shift from fear-driven messages to supportive feedback.
Welcome to the debate. Today we’re delving into a really critical issue impacting education in Bangladesh. This pervasive fear of failure we see in schools. Recent research has shed quite a bit of light on this, framing it not just as an individual student’s weakness but as a deep-seated systemic response. It’s part of the entire educational ecosystem.
Exactly. It creates what experts are calling a self-reinforcing loop of harm. And this loop, it profoundly touches students, teachers, school leaders, and parents alike. It really perpetuates a cycle of anxiety and frankly underperformance. We’re going to explore the evidence detailing how intense exam pressure and often punitive norms significantly contribute to this cycle.
Right? And the central question guiding our conversation today is this. What’s the primary, the most impactful lever for truly breaking the systemic cycle of fear of failure in Bangladeshi schools? Is it through direct localized interventions, things like pedagogical changes and teacher-level support, empowering people at the grassroots? Or conversely, is it through fundamental top-down reforms, changes to accountability, to leadership structures, addressing the very architecture of the system itself?
And I’ll be arguing for the efficacy and I think the immediate impact of those localized classroom-level interventions. I believe they can build vital momentum for change right from the ground up.
And I will be emphasizing the absolute necessity of broader systemic and structural reforms, arguing that without them these localized efforts, however good, are ultimately just unsustainable.
Okay, so let me lay out my position. The evidence I believe strongly suggests that focusing on direct localized pedagogical and teacher-level interventions can create really immediate and powerful shifts. It directly addresses the visible manifestations of this pervasive fear. For instance, consider fostering what are called error-friendly climates in classrooms. This can completely transform the learning experience. And it’s not just about being lenient, right? It means actively creating an environment where mistakes are explicitly viewed as crucial learning opportunities, not failures to be hidden or punished.
Alongside this, implementing strategies like low-stakes retrieval practice, which involves frequent short checks on understanding, low-consequence checks rather than these huge high-pressure exams, can significantly improve student motivation and learning. International research in cognitive science from people like Buork and Buork and Metaf consistently supports these approaches. These pedagogical shifts directly counter what researchers including Chowry, Haidider and Morshed have consistently observed among Bangladeshi students: pervasive classroom silence and a really crippling fear of negative evaluation. When students are afraid to speak up, to ask questions, or to try new things because they dread making a mistake, genuine learning just shuts down.
Right. That silence is a clear indicator.
Exactly. So, by changing how we assess and how we view errors, we empower students to engage more openly. Furthermore, we can support teachers by adopting more, let’s say, holistic evaluation practices instead of relying solely on a single high-stakes observation. Imagine triangulating evidence for teacher evaluation. This means we look at a combination of things: student work over time, different kinds of assessments, multiple observations. This approach, recommended by reviews like the Sutton Trust Report, can significantly reduce what’s called defensive teaching, where teachers play it safe. They stick to rote learning and drilling simply to avoid perceived risks. Anoir’s research in 2019 highlighted how prevalent this is.
So these targeted changes empower educators and students, build crucial momentum for a cultural shift from the ground up, and align with critical findings like Roman and colleagues’ 2025 insight that parental support, not pressure, predicts student success. These interventions provide tangible, immediate benefits right where the learning happens — in the classroom.
Well, I certainly acknowledge the immense value of pedagogical innovations and the earnest efforts of individual educators trying to make a difference. I really do. But I contend that these localized efforts, however well-intentioned, are ultimately just insufficient to truly break a cycle that’s so deeply embedded within the entire education system. The evidence we’ve looked at clearly paints a picture of what Ramen et al. described back in 2023 as a rock-hard top-down administration. It’s a highly centralized, rigid bureaucratic structure that trickles down through the whole system.
And this, coupled with what Haque and Akhtar identified in 2024 as high power distance — meaning a strong cultural emphasis on hierarchy, authority, and obedience — actively reduces teacher initiative and autonomy. In that kind of environment, the system effectively enforces compliance over innovation. Teachers aren’t truly free to experiment or take risks when they’re constantly looking up the chain of command, are they?
Fundamentally, the system defines success almost entirely through exam results. This demonstrably fuels a relentless focus on memorization and coaching, as highlighted by Assan’s 2022 research and extensive campaign data. This singular focus on high-stakes exams contributes to a severe mental health toll on students. Reports from Hussein et al. in 2024 and Proamalo just this year reveal alarming rates of depression and anxiety directly linked to this academic pressure.
That’s deeply concerning.
It is. And parents in turn respond rationally, in a way, to this environment. They invest heavily in coaching and guide books. Campaign data shows many families spending 4,000 to 5,000 per month per child. That’s a huge amount. Why? Because of the immense cultural weight of exams, a phenomenon Nath described back in 2016. Parents deeply believe their children’s opportunities, their entire future, depends solely on achieving top grades.
So without fundamental top-down reforms that actually redefine accountability, that genuinely incentivize innovation over mere conformity, and reshape the entire framework of what constitutes success, these localized efforts will constantly battle against overwhelming systemic pressure. It just makes any progress fragile, unsustainable, and ultimately an uphill battle. We need to address the root cause of this system-wide fear, not just the symptoms we see in individual classrooms.
I see why you emphasize the systemic pressures, and it’s certainly true that these are formidable forces. However, I want to offer a slightly different perspective on the power of localized interventions. The research on error-climate studies by Stuart, Drestell, and Sanchini has been particularly illuminating here. It consistently shows that in learning environments where mistakes are openly discussed and analysed constructively, student motivation and achievement demonstrably improve.
These are direct, observable impacts on the students themselves. Even within these existing, seemingly rigid structures, empowering teachers through targeted training and support to cultivate such environments can begin to dismantle the fear at its most immediate point of impact — the classroom itself.
We don’t necessarily have to wait for those monumental, glacial systemic shifts you mentioned. A dedicated teacher, even today, right now, can choose to incorporate low-stakes retrieval practice into their daily lessons. That offers immediate relief and concrete benefits to students experiencing genuine psychosocial distress because of exam anxiety.
Imagine a student who, in a traditional setting, might freeze up under pressure. In an error-friendly classroom, they might feel more comfortable attempting a problem, knowing a mistake is actually a step toward understanding, not a catastrophe. These individual changes, when multiplied across classrooms and schools, can indeed start a significant cultural shift from the ground up. It’s about demonstrating what’s possible, building success stories that can then inform those larger reforms you’re talking about.
That’s an interesting point, and I agree. The immediate benefits of an error-friendly climate for individual students are undeniable. Of course, they are. But I would frame the larger issue differently, focusing on the sheer sustainability of these efforts over time.
While an individual teacher might bravely attempt to implement an error-friendly climate, the system itself, unfortunately, often punishes mistakes and actively rewards conformity. How can a teacher consistently take those pedagogical risks, or indeed foster genuine psychological safety, if observations and exam results remain the key measures of teacher quality? Anoir’s 2019 work explicitly detailed how sticking to exam drilling and textbook recitation is the safest choice for teachers. They’re just being rational actors within what seems like an irrational system.
But isn’t that a choice they can still make, even if it’s harder?
Well, yes, but consider the pressure. Leaders too are caught in this bind. Faced with those rock-hard top-down structures and the high power distance we discussed, they’ll naturally default to hierarchy and control. They’ll focus intently on order and discipline rather than cultivating genuine psychological safety.
This concept, critical for fostering innovation as outlined by Professor Edmonson, is about creating an environment where people feel safe to speak up, ask questions, and take calculated risks without fear of negative consequences. Yet, if a school leader’s own performance is judged solely on exam results and strict adherence to directives from above, how much room do they truly have to encourage teacher experimentation?
The very nature of this loop of harm suggests these well-meaning individual attempts will likely be swiftly undermined, eroded, or simply seen as too risky by the powerful existing systemic incentives and pressures. It’s a fundamental mismatch between the desired behaviour — innovation and risk-taking — and the rewarded behaviour — conformity and playing it safe. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy that individual teacher choices alone are enough to overcome these deeply entrenched systemic forces.
Let me elaborate on why I see this primarily as a structural problem. The issue isn’t merely about individual teachers making choices. It’s profoundly about the systemic incentives and, importantly, the accountability mechanisms they face. You mentioned the Sutton Trust review earlier, which indeed highlights a critical flaw. Lesson observation judgments, often a key measure of teacher quality, are only 60% reliable.
Think about that for a second. We’re using a highly unreliable metric to assess, and in some cases determine, the career progression of our educators. This flawed accountability system, by its very design, actively forces teachers into defensive teaching. They prioritise avoiding perceived errors in front of an observer over genuinely innovative or student-centred pedagogy — because it’s safer for them.
Okay. The reliability issue is definitely a weak point in the current structure.
Exactly. So to truly free teachers to innovate, to create those error-friendly climates you so eloquently champion, we must fundamentally reform these measures of teacher quality. We need to move beyond high-stakes single observations and rigid adherence to compliance.
And this isn’t just an internal school issue. It directly influences parental expectations, which then in a negative feedback loop further drive teacher behaviour. Parents see the system valuing rote learning and exam results, so they pressure schools and teachers to deliver exactly that. So the question remains: how do we break that specific cycle without changing the top-down directives and the metrics by which everyone — teachers, leaders, schools — is ultimately judged?
Certainly, you’ve highlighted a critical flaw in the current system with the reliability of those observation judgments. I agree that is a systemic problem that absolutely needs serious attention if we’re truly going to empower teachers. However, and this is a big however for me, systemic changes often take a frustratingly long time to conceptualise, implement, and then show impact.
My concern is what happens to the students and teachers in the interim. Must they simply endure this loop of harm until the perfect top-down reform finally materialises, maybe years down the line?
Well, what’s the alternative? If the small changes keep getting squashed?
The alternative is proactive leadership at the school level. I would argue that even while we work towards fixing that larger structural flaw, leaders within schools still have a powerful opportunity to cultivate psychological safety by modelling it themselves.
Professor Edmonson’s work explicitly suggests this. Leaders can share their own learning from missteps. Imagine a school principal or department head openly discussing a teaching strategy they tried that didn’t quite work out, explaining what they learned from it, and actively encouraging their staff to experiment.
This isn’t about ignoring accountability entirely — of course not. But it’s about redefining it within the existing, albeit imperfect, structures. By creating an environment where taking calculated risks in pedagogy isn’t immediately punished, where mistakes are genuinely seen as opportunities for collective learning, teachers gain the crucial agency and confidence to experiment.
This internal shift, where schools see the benefits of innovation firsthand, can actually pave the way for more meaningful and acceptable top-down reforms later. It builds a foundation of trust and demonstrated success that future systemic reforms can then build upon.
Furthermore, let’s circle back to the immense influence of parents, which we both agree is a powerful factor in this loop of harm. The evidence, particularly from Ramen et al.’s 2025 study, specifically shows — and this is striking — that parental support, not pressure, predicts student success.
This is a truly important insight. It tells us that while parental involvement is critical, the nature of that involvement matters profoundly. This suggests that awareness campaigns and proactive school engagement with parents — focusing on the value of effort, intrinsic learning, and resilience rather than just grades — can be profoundly effective.
Potentially, schools can collaborate with parents to actively shift these deeply ingrained expectations. We can demonstrate, through concrete examples and open communication, how an error-friendly learning environment truly benefits their children’s long-term development. It fosters crucial skills like critical thinking, problem-solving, and emotional resilience — qualities that go far beyond rote memorisation.
This directly counters the current reality of conditional acceptance children often feel, as reported by the Business Standard in 2024, where students’ worth seems tied only to academic achievements. By educating parents on the benefits of more progressive teaching methods, emphasising the importance of effort and genuine understanding, we can alleviate some of the immense pressure coming from home. This allows children the space to thrive.
It isn’t about blaming parents at all. It’s about equipping them with a different, perhaps more beneficial perspective on what truly constitutes success for their child.
I come at the issue of parental influence from a rather different angle. While I appreciate the vision of schools engaging parents in awareness campaigns, I fear it may not fully account for the profound societal pressures driving parental behaviour. Parents are deeply embedded in this system, and their actions, as I mentioned, are often a rational — if ultimately detrimental — response to perceived limited options.
We know from campaign data that families are making heavy investments — 4,000 to 5,000 Taka per month on coaching for a single child. Think about that sacrifice for a moment. It represents a profound belief, and frankly a deep-seated fear, for their child’s future.
This isn’t simply about individual choices or a lack of awareness on their part. It’s because they rationally fear that anything less than the best will close doors to opportunity.
But isn’t that perception something schools can help change?
Perhaps over the very long term. But this parental pressure, however counterproductive it might be for a child’s well-being and genuine learning, is a widespread societal belief. It’s driven by the immense cultural weight of exams. As Nath pointed out in 2016, in Bangladesh — and indeed in many similar contexts — top exam scores are often seen as the only reliable pathway to a good university, secure job, and upward mobility.
Until the broader system fundamentally changes, until it provides diverse, credible pathways to opportunity that are not solely dependent on achieving top exam scores, parental pressure will likely remain a rational response. Changing the parental mindset fundamentally requires changing the underlying opportunity structure that shapes their children’s futures.
Without that systemic shift, awareness campaigns, however well-designed, might just feel like asking parents to gamble with their children’s future prospects. It’s a hard sell.
As we draw our discussion to a close, it’s clear that this pervasive fear of failure in Bangladeshi schools is a truly complex, multi-faceted issue. It’s deeply ingrained and impacts every stakeholder — from the individual student in the classroom right up to the highest levels of administration.
I’ve made a strong case, I hope, for the immediate and tangible benefits of localised classroom-level interventions. My argument emphasises how direct changes in pedagogy and teacher support — like fostering error-friendly climates where mistakes are embraced, or implementing low-stakes retrieval practices that reduce exam anxiety — can empower individuals and build momentum from the ground up.
And I have powerfully articulated, I trust, that while such localised efforts are valuable, the fundamentally systemic nature of the problem — driven by ingrained top-down administration, high-stakes accountability mechanisms, and deep-seated cultural pressures around exam results — will ultimately undermine or severely limit them without structural reforms.
My position remains that without redefining what success truly means within the system, moving beyond compliance, and creating diverse pathways to opportunity, classroom progress will constantly battle overwhelming systemic inertia. This makes it fragile and unsustainable in the long run.
Both perspectives highlight critical aspects of this loop of harm and illuminate potential pathways to breaking the cycle. While we disagree on where the most impactful starting point lies — top-down or bottom-up — there is convergence too. We both agree this is not about individual weakness or blame. It is a systemic challenge, underscoring the need for further research, especially longitudinal, multi-stakeholder studies in the Bangladeshi context.
The research we’ve examined provides a strong foundation but also reveals critical gaps, particularly in tracing the full extent of multi-directional feedback loops within Bangladesh. It really is a system of interconnected parts, and changing one without considering the others is always a risk.
Ultimately, listeners are invited to reflect: which approach, or what combination and sequence of approaches, will best achieve lasting, transformative change in Bangladeshi education?
Thank you for joining us in the debate.
English
