Why so many errors in answer-sheet evaluation? Questions raised over assessment method

Every year, the results of some candidates in the SSC and equivalent examinations change after re-scrutiny. But this year, not only has the number of applicants for re-scrutiny reached a record high, the number of changes in results has also increased unusually compared with previous years.

Alongside re-scrutiny, the authorities this year also introduced re-evaluation of answer scripts. Following the process, 3,079 candidates across 11 education boards have newly secured GPA-5.

A total of 4,585 candidates who were declared unsuccessful in the initial results have now passed. Last year, the number was 2,207. In other words, the number of candidates moving from fail to pass has more than doubled this year.

In addition, the results or grades of 27,836 candidates have changed, while marks have changed for 56,259 candidates.

Such extensive changes following re-scrutiny are not merely cases of correcting candidates’ results. They have raised questions about the quality of the answer-sheet evaluation system in an important public examination such as the SSC. They have also brought into focus how reliable the marks awarded by examiners during the initial evaluation actually were.

Professor Syed Akhtaruzzaman, chairman of the Inter-Education Board Coordination Committee and chairman of the Dhaka Education Board, told Prothom Alo today that one reason for the unusually high number of changes was that both re-scrutiny and re-evaluation were carried out this year.

“Even under the previous re-scrutiny system, the results of a significant number of candidates would change. This year, re-evaluation was added to re-scrutiny, which is why the number of changes is higher,” he said.

However, Syed Akhtaruzzaman said such a large number of changes should not occur following re-evaluation. There may be some variation in assessment from one individual to another, he said.

“Teachers worked extremely hard to carry out the re-evaluation this year. They worked continuously for 11 days, which made it possible to complete the process,” he said.

According to the rules, disciplinary action will be taken against examiners who awarded “inappropriate” marks during the initial evaluation.

Under the education boards’ rules, there had previously been no provision for re-evaluation of answer scripts. For candidates who applied for re-scrutiny, the authorities mainly checked whether there had been any errors in adding or subtracting marks.

This year, re-evaluation has been added to the existing system, expanding the scope for changes in results.

The SSC and equivalent examination results were published on 10 August. After maintaining relatively high pass rates for a long period, SSC results have been on a downward trend for the past two years.

This year, the pass rate across the nine general education boards fell to 64.05 per cent, the lowest in 19 years. The combined pass rate across the nine general education boards, the Madrasa Education Board and the Technical Education Board was 62.25 per cent.

Against this backdrop of declining results, the fact that the grades and results of thousands of candidates changed following re-scrutiny has given the issue added significance.

The fact that candidates declared unsuccessful in the initial results subsequently passed after re-evaluation has further intensified questions about the accuracy of the assessment process.

After the results were published, applications for re-scrutiny were accepted online from 11 to 17 August.

According to education board sources, more than 1.829 million candidates sat for this year’s SSC and equivalent examinations. Of them, 402,052 candidates under the 11 education boards applied for re-scrutiny of their answer scripts. Their applications covered 1,056,458 scripts.

Manzurul Kabir, senior system analyst at the Dhaka Education Board, told Prothom Alo that the grades of 27,836 candidates changed, while marks changed for 56,259 candidates. A total of 4,585 candidates moved from fail to pass, while 3,079 newly secured GPA-5.

Until now, re-scrutiny mainly involved correcting errors in the calculation of marks. Even under that system, the results of a significant number of candidates changed every year.

According to data from the Dhaka Education Board alone, the results of 723 candidates changed in 2022, 3,085 in 2023, 2,723 in 2024 and 2,946 in 2025. This year, however, the grades of 8,999 candidates changed in the Dhaka board alone.

Although changes in results following re-scrutiny occur every year, the scale of the changes this year has brought the issue into sharper focus.
In particular, cases involving grade changes, candidates moving from fail to pass and candidates newly securing GPA-5 raise questions not only about technical errors in preparing results but also about the quality of answer-sheet evaluation.

Under the current practice of publishing results within 60 days, examiners have to assess a huge number of answer scripts within a limited period. There are complaints that this timeframe is too short to ensure accurate evaluation.

On the one hand, there is pressure to publish results quickly; on the other, examiners have to assess a huge number of scripts within a short period. These factors can create a situation in which answer scripts are evaluated hastily.

The problem becomes more serious when there are allegations that some examiners assess answer scripts carelessly.

The scale of changes following this year’s re-evaluation, therefore, is not merely a matter of how many candidates had their marks or grades changed. Even a single mark can have a major impact on a candidate’s pass-fail status, grade or GPA.

Education experts believe that, to ensure no candidate suffers because of errors in evaluating answer scripts in such an important public examination, greater attention needs to be paid to the time allowed for evaluation, assessment methods and examiners’ accountability.

Amirul Alam Khan, a former chairman of the Jashore Education Board, told Prothom Alo that there had previously been no provision for re-evaluation. Only errors in calculating marks could be corrected. As a result, there was no effective mechanism to prevent or rectify errors in answer-sheet evaluation.

Based on his nine years of experience working at an education board, he said he had seen cases in which there were problems with answer-sheet evaluation, but action could not be taken against those responsible or anything could be done with the answer scripts because there was no provision for it.

Amirul Alam Khan said the introduction of re-evaluation has now addressed that gap.

“This is a good initiative. But the key issue is how honestly the process is being carried out,” he said.

“We hope the work will be done carefully so that no student suffers because of errors in evaluation.”