This is precisely the concern that has emerged during the ongoing HSC 2026 examinations in Bangladesh across all boards, but especially Dhaka.

From confirmed errors in the Physics First Paper to allegations of translation inconsistencies from the Bangla Version to the English Version, missing numerical information, word gaps and distorted STEM terminology, a larger question now demands attention: when a board examination question gets it wrong, who is responsible for the consequences imposed on millions of students?

The controversy particularly grabbed attention after the Physics First Paper examination. Candidates, teachers, mentors and even the following year’s candidates identified errors in the creative section, especially in Questions 6 and 7. The Education Board subsequently acknowledged errors in Questions 6 and 7 and decided that candidates would receive full marks for those questions. Four teachers involved in the moderation process were also issued show-cause notices.

But the real question is, those who didn’t attempt Questions 6 and 7 will not get automatic marks according to the decision. Isn’t it unfair to the rest of the students?

The decision to award full marks was necessary. It was also an acknowledgement that the problem was not simply that students had found a question difficult. Difficulty and incorrectness are not the same thing.

A difficult question can be academically legitimate. It may require students to combine concepts, apply a principle in an unfamiliar situation or demonstrate higher-order thinking. An incorrect question, however, creates a fundamentally different problem. If the information provided has a gap, if a vector relationship cannot produce a scientifically valid result, if a necessary numerical value or point is missing without clearly indicating that a generalised answer is expected, or if the question does not logically lead to a determinable answer, then the student is no longer being assessed purely on academic knowledge.

This distinction is crucial.

There is a tendency in examination culture to dismiss complaints about difficult questions as evidence of inadequate preparation. That argument can sometimes be valid. Not every unfamiliar question is a faulty question. Indeed, some students and teachers have disagreed about whether every disputed Physics or Chemistry question was technically ‘wrong’ and merely ambiguous. However, that disagreement itself demonstrates why a rigorous question-review system is essential. A national examination cannot depend on social media arguments between students, teachers, coaching-centre instructors or edu-tech platforms to determine whether a question is scientifically valid.

The Physics and Chemistry controversy has therefore exposed a structural weakness rather than merely an isolated printing mistake.

The more troubling issue is that the problem appears to extend beyond one subject and one paper. English-version HSC candidates have raised complaints about repeated translation errors, omitted mathematical data and changes in scientific terminology across question papers. Reports have specifically described allegations that the English version sometimes fails to preserve the exact meaning, information and technical precision of the Bangla version.

This raises a basic principle of examination fairness: a translated question must not become a different question.

The two groups are no longer facing the same academic task. If a scientific term is mistranslated, the problem becomes even more serious. In STEM subjects, language is not merely a medium of communication. A single word can change the meaning of a scientific condition, the relationship between variables or the expected method of solving a problem.

Translation, therefore, cannot be treated as a clerical afterthought.

The responsibility of a question setter is therefore much greater than simply writing a question that appears difficult or intellectually impressive. A question setter must ensure that the question is factually accurate, logically solvable, consistent with the syllabus, appropriate to the expected level of students and free from ambiguity. A moderator must then independently scrutinise the question. The process should not be a symbolic signature exercise in which one person assumes that another person has already checked the paper.

This is where accountability becomes central.

When a question paper contains an error, the first response should not be to blame students for misunderstanding it. Nor should the public discussion immediately become a debate over whether students are weak or whether a question is too hard to answer.

A national examination question paper typically goes through multiple stages. Questions are prepared, reviewed, moderated, formatted, translated, printed and distributed. At each stage, there should be an opportunity to detect an error. If a major scientific inconsistency survives every stage, the problem is not simply that one individual made a mistake. It suggests that the entire system of verification is faulty and shaky.

The authorities must therefore answer a straightforward question: what exactly is the quality-control mechanism for an HSC question paper?

For a student, an HSC examination is not an ordinary class test. A single mark can affect a grade. A grade can influence admission opportunities. Therefore, the cost of an institutional error is not abstract.

The same principle applies to the English Version. Students who choose the English Version are not asking for a different standard. They are entitled to the same academic accuracy. If translation errors repeatedly occur, the problem should not be treated as a minor inconvenience faced by a relatively smaller group of candidates. Equal examination standards require equal quality of examination materials.

The purpose of accountability is not to create a culture of punishment. It is to create a culture of responsibility.

The examination authorities concerned must recognise a simple truth: students should never be required to compensate for errors made by the examination system.

A question full of flaws should not reach a national examination hall. That is where accountability begins.