The recent controversy surrounding the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)'s On-Screen Marking (OSM) system has sparked a wider debate on the Board's institutional role. While the immediate issues involved technical failures during the Class 12 evaluation process, education experts argue that the episode reflects deeper structural and governance challenges rather than merely a technological glitch.

What Happened During the OSM Rollout?

Following the declaration of Class 12 board examination results, several issues were reported, including:

• Blurred scans of answer scripts.
• Missing pages in evaluated copies.
• Alleged security vulnerabilities exposing examiner credentials.
• A cyberattack affecting the re-evaluation portal.

The controversy eventually led to the removal of the CBSE Chairman and Secretary. Subsequently, the Central Information Commission recommended that CBSE establish a clear, time-bound Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for providing students access to marks and evaluated answer sheets.

Digital Evaluation Is Not the Problem

Experts note that On-Screen Marking (OSM) remains an important reform with several advantages:

• Faster evaluation and result declaration.
• Reduced human errors in totaling marks.
• Digital audit trails for greater accountability.
• Improved transparency compared to manual paper handling.

However, the implementation reportedly suffered due to shortcomings in:

• Vendor selection.
• System stress testing.
• Training of evaluators.
• Grievance redressal mechanisms.
• Cybersecurity safeguards.

The episode underscores that successful digital transformation depends as much on institutional capacity as on technology.

How CBSE's Role Has Expanded

Established in its present form in 1962, CBSE originally functioned primarily as an examination board responsible for conducting school examinations and issuing nationally recognized certificates. At the time, it served only 309 schools.

Today, the Board is affiliated with more than 30,000 schools, the majority of which are private institutions.

Over the decades, CBSE has also taken on additional responsibilities, including:

• School affiliation and renewal.
• Teacher training.
• Curriculum development.
• Conducting competitive examinations.
• Publishing textbooks and academic resources.

Critics argue that this expansion has transformed CBSE from a specialized examination body into a regulator, creating potential conflicts of interest.

Concerns Over Regulatory Functions

Education policy analysts contend that combining regulatory and examination responsibilities may create governance challenges.

Since CBSE both:

• Sets affiliation standards, and
• Conducts board examinations,

questions have been raised about whether the same institution should simultaneously regulate schools while also certifying their students.

The article argues that this concentration of functions may increase administrative complexity and reduce operational efficiency.

Alignment with NEP 2020

The National Education Policy 2020 recommends separating policy-making, regulation, service delivery, and assessment to avoid conflicts of interest in school governance.

It proposes establishing independent State School Standards Authorities (SSSAs) to oversee regulation, allowing examination boards to focus exclusively on assessment and certification.

Supporters of this approach believe that limiting CBSE's role to examinations could improve specialization, efficiency, and institutional accountability.

Improving Access to Board Certification

Another reform suggested is allowing students outside CBSE-affiliated schools to directly appear for CBSE board examinations.

Proponents argue that:

• Strict affiliation requirements increase the cost of CBSE schooling.
• Many capable students from economically weaker backgrounds remain unable to access CBSE certification.
• Greater flexibility could expand educational opportunities while maintaining common academic standards.

Such a model would broaden access without necessarily requiring all students to study in affiliated schools.

The Way Forward

The OSM controversy highlights the need for both technological and institutional reforms. Key recommendations include:

• Strengthening digital infrastructure and cybersecurity.
• Establishing transparent SOPs for evaluation and re-evaluation.
• Improving vendor selection and quality assurance.
• Enhancing accountability in digital examination systems.
• Reassessing CBSE's expanding regulatory responsibilities in line with NEP 2020.
• Ensuring broader and more equitable access to nationally recognized board certification.

Conclusion

The challenges faced during the On-Screen Marking rollout extend beyond technology and point toward broader questions about governance, institutional design, and accountability. While digital evaluation remains a valuable reform, its success depends on robust implementation, transparent processes, and clearly defined institutional responsibilities. The episode provides an opportunity for CBSE to strengthen its core function of conducting credible examinations while pursuing reforms that enhance efficiency, fairness, and public trust in India's school education system.