Digitising Education: How CBSE's OSM Experiment Went Off Course

“Many of my seniors who expected scores between 80 and 90 per cent ended up in the 50s. Their confidence has been badly affected because marks are the main criterion for admission to scholarships and top colleges,” says Huda, a student at Delhi Public School.

Huda says that while rumours about the On-Screen Marking (OSM) system had been circulating since late February, students did not take them seriously until the declaration of results in May, when concerns about the system intensified.

Introduced this year as a modern upgrade to streamline and digitise the evaluation process, the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) newly implemented OSM system for evaluating this year’s Class 12th answer sheets has sparked criticism and concern among students, parents, and educators.

Thousands of students who performed consistently well in school examinations, pre-boards, and entrance coaching exams say their final marks bear little resemblance to their actual performance, describing the new evaluation process as arbitrary and error-prone.

“Students already face immense pressure from parents and society to score well. We work hard for these exams, but this situation has shaken our trust in the system. It is difficult to stay motivated when our results may not reflect our efforts,” Huda says.

What Is On-Screen Marking (OSM)?

On-Screen Marking (OSM) is a digital evaluation system that was introduced by CBSE for Class 12 answer sheets. Instead of manually assessing physical answer books, evaluators now review scanned digital copies on secure platforms. The process involves scanning answer sheets, converting them into high-resolution images, and marking them electronically. CBSE claims OSM reduces human errors in tabulation and improves transparency.

However, students have argued that the lack of physical answer sheets makes it harder to verify marks, leading to concerns about fairness and accuracy. The system was rolled out this year as a modern upgrade but has faced criticism for its implementation and impact on results.

When Digital Reform Meets Reality

“The system is built for the children, not for the system itself, and authorities must put students at the center of their imagination. If restoring belief in the system requires accommodating more than 15 lakh students who want their marks re-checked, then the system must do exactly that,” says Dr. Ramanand, Founder, Centre for Policy And Governance (CPRG).

Ramanand appreciates CBSE's efforts at going digital. He says that while the old manual re-evaluation process was cumbersome and often caused students to miss admission deadlines, a successful digital system could save time and reduce student anxiety. However, he believes the current problems associated with OSM stem from poor execution and a lack of imaginative planning rather than any flaw in the concept of digitisation itself.

While Ramanand attributes the situation to implementation failures, Huda believes the transition has created challenges for both educators and students.

According to Huda, the technology is still new to many educators, leaving some teachers uncertain or disengaged from the evaluation process.

Sofia Khan*, an evaluator from Rampur, echoed some of these concerns. “Training for us was just five or six sheets with instructions which we had got—that was the training. There was no practical training. I believe six months of working and understanding should have been there before starting this," she says.

Khan explained that while schools provided lab assistants and technical support staff, they could only help evaluators navigate the software. She noted that while technical staff could assist with software issues, evaluating the quality of a student's answer remained entirely the teacher's responsibility.

She also highlighted a gap in student preparation, noting that while students were routinely taught to maintain neat handwriting and margins, they were never informed that their answer sheets would be processed through a digital evaluation system.

Ramanand says the failure of this transition has had a significant psychological impact on students. He stressed that the mental trauma caused by the lapse has been amplified by social media, shaking students' belief in the integrity of board examinations. To address these concerns, he recommended minimising re-evaluation fees and adopting a "course-correction mode" that prioritises student feedback over rigid administrative procedures.

He further noted that in a country as diverse as India, it is impossible to ensure a completely error-free implementation without a gradual, phase-wise rollout. According to Ramanand, evaluators cannot be expected to master every technical competency simultaneously, and a slower approach would have helped identify problems before they affected nearly 28 lakh students.

Outlook contacted CBSE Chairperson Rahul Singh, who declined to comment in detail, citing the ongoing re-evaluation process.

“I did hold a press conference when this matter came to light. I will provide further updates on social media in the coming days,” he said.

CBSE defends OSM rollout

In a press conference held on May 17, CBSE officials defended the On-Screen Marking (OSM) system and rejected suggestions that the technology itself was responsible for discrepancies in students' scores. School Education Secretary Sanjay Kumar said the system was not being introduced for the first time, noting that CBSE had initially experimented with OSM in 2014 before reintroducing it this year with improved infrastructure and security mechanisms.

Kumar maintained that the system was designed to increase transparency and standardisation in evaluation.

Khan argues that digital evaluation changes the way answer sheets are read and assessed by examiners.

“When you have a sheet in your hand and you go through it with your eyes, that pen which works allows you to discuss points; you can't miss out on anything. Computerised work is definitely different from manual work,” she says.

According to Kumar, nearly 98 lakh answer sheets were scanned through a multi-layered security process, significantly reducing the possibility of tabulation and totalling errors that could occur in a manual system.

Addressing concerns regarding scanning quality, Kumar acknowledged that some answer sheets faced legibility issues due to factors such as light-coloured ink and poor scan clarity. He said more than 13,000 answer sheets had to be manually evaluated after repeated scanning attempts failed, adding that the board had put corrective measures in place to ensure affected students were not disadvantaged.

However, Khan says that the effectiveness of the system depends heavily on the quality of scanning. According to her, if pages are scanned poorly, evaluators may struggle to read portions of an answer sheet, potentially affecting assessment.

Rahul Singh also defended the evaluation process, stating that CBSE examinations have long followed a step-wise marking system, particularly in subjects such as Mathematics and Science, where students may arrive at the correct answer through different methods. He rejected claims that evaluators were inadequately trained to use the new system and maintained that safeguards existed to ensure fair assessment.

The officials further emphasised that students dissatisfied with their results could make use of the board's verification, answer-sheet access and re-evaluation mechanisms. Kumar argued that one of the key advantages of OSM is that examiners are required to assign marks to each step of an answer before submitting final scores, thereby minimising the risk of totalling mistakes.

The board also announced a reduction in re-evaluation-related fees and introduced a revised review process that allows students to first access scanned copies of their answer sheets before deciding whether to seek verification or re-evaluation.

As the re-evaluation process continues, students like Huda are uncertain about whether their marks will accurately reflect their performance. For many, the controversy has raised broader questions about trust, transparency and the growing role of technology in high-stakes examinations.