Bhubaneswar: Many errors have been detected in new textbooks prepared for Classes I to VIII in government schools in Odisha, raising question over the quality of screening and checking.
While the detection of errors has raised concerns among teachers, parents and students, the School and Mass Education Department has acknowledged the mistakes and prepared a list of corrections.
According to information, at least 1,678 errors have been detected across the textbooks. These include spelling mistakes, incorrect names of eminent personalities, factual inaccuracies and wrong photographs. The highest number of 705 errors has been found in Class VIII textbooks.
Similarly, 294 errors were detected in Jijnasa, 114 in Sanskrit, 25 in Social Science, 31 in Literature, and 12 each in English and Mathematics.
In a glaring mistake, a photogr
aph of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly was used in place of the Odisha Legislative Assembly. Odisha’s Niyamgiri Hills were incorrectly described as being located in Jharkhand. The books also identified Ganjam district as Berhampur district, despite Berhampur being a city in Ganjam.
The textbooks have already been distributed to students across schools, prompting criticism from parents, teachers and educationists.
Sources said the revised textbooks were developed under the Odisha Curriculum Framework for School Education 2025 in line with NEP 2020 and were scheduled to be used from the 2026–27 academic session. The responsibility for preparing the books was entrusted to the Directorate of Teacher Education and the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), with the involvement of experienced teachers and subject experts.
However, teacher associations have questioned how such a large number of mistakes could have gone unnoticed despite the participation of experts. Concerns have also been raised over the apparent lack of proper proofreading and review before the books were sent for printing.
While SCERT has acknowledged the errors, it has described the textbooks as an “experimental edition” and termed the mistakes minor. The explanation, however, has drawn criticism from several quarters, with many arguing that factual errors involving historical figures, geographical information and mathematical data cannot be dismissed as minor oversights.