World

Several flaws identified in national exam grading process

Reports reveal significant errors in the grading of national exams, impacting QR code reading and other areas.

30 September 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

According to released reports, several technical flaws have been identified in the grading process of national secondary education exams. Among the errors, the failure to read QR codes stands out, leading to a series of problems throughout the process.

The established appeals mechanism set up to address failures in QR code reading also resulted in new errors, exacerbating the situation. Deloitte, one of the consulting firms involved, highlighted that the failures occurred at various stages of the exam process.

In addition to the issues related to QR codes, the report indicates that the printing of exam papers and the grading of multiple-choice questions also presented significant defects. These problems were reported to Parliament by the Ministry of Education through the MECI.

The manual correction of cases where QR codes were not recognized indicated limitations in the Grading and Supervision Platform. Deloitte reported that this approach had implications for the efficiency of the process.

The reports in question were developed by the National Exam Jury and the consulting firm Deloitte, thus highlighting a complex and problematic overview regarding the administration of the exams.

The sequence of observed failures raises concerns about the reliability of the exam system, and experts continue to analyze the implications for the future of assessment in secondary education.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.