Bangladesh's SSC results expose a system that was never fair

The SSC results published recently should trouble us, but not for the reason officials keep offering. Bangladesh's education system has cycled through creative questions, guidebook bans and repeated teacher-training initiatives over the past two decades, and each time, weak results are blamed on students "not studying enough".

This year's numbers make that explanation harder to sustain. The pass rate under the nine general education boards fell to 64.05%, from 68.04% last year — a decline of nearly four percentage points. It is also the fourth consecutive year that the number of GPA-5 achievers has fallen, from 183,578 in 2023 to 106,009 this year. A decline of this size and consistency, across nearly two million students, is not simply a talent problem. It is a system problem.

Education Minister ANM Ehsanul Hoque Milon defended the results by saying students received only the marks they had earned this year. In his words, "you can sing your heart out, but you can't just give away marks." Some education officials have echoed this view, framing the decline as evidence of stricter, more honest evaluation after years of grade inflation.

That defence concedes more than it intends to. If stricter marking alone accounts for a four-percentage-point national decline, then the gap between a "generous" and a "genuine" assessment of Bangladeshi secondary education is at least four percentage points wide. That would mean the system has been overstating its own performance for years.

Honest grading does not create underprepared students; it stops concealing them. The minister's defence, taken seriously, is therefore not a rebuttal of the structural-failure argument. It is evidence for it.

It also does not explain the shape of the decline. If this were simply a case of "less generous grading across the board", we would expect a broadly similar decline across groups and regions. Instead, the damage appears to have been concentrated heavily in one stream.

The Humanities pipeline collapse

Under the Chattogram Board, Science group students recorded an 84.41% pass rate this year. Business Studies recorded 60.12%. Humanities recorded just 38.79%, down from 55.02% last year — a 16-point collapse in a single year.

This is not a Chattogram-only pattern. Humanities has recorded the lowest group-wise pass rate nationally in recent cycles, despite enrolling more students than Science and Business Studies combined.

This is where "stricter marking" as an explanation begins to break down. Stricter marking should affect students across streams, even if its impact is not necessarily identical. It does not, by itself, explain an 84% pass rate in one stream and a 39% pass rate in another under the same examination, board and year.

What differs between those groups is not simply the examination standard but the resources available to students. Science-track students are disproportionately likely to come from families that can afford coaching, attend schools with subject specialists and be encouraged to pursue a stream that receives greater investment and social prestige.

Humanities, meanwhile, often absorbs students whom the system has already given up on — sometimes because Arts is perceived as the cheaper option rather than a preferred one, and because neither the job market nor higher education consistently signals that a Humanities qualification is worth investing in.

A 16-point year-on-year collapse in one stream, while Science maintains a nearly 85% pass rate, should therefore prompt questions about differences in resources, teaching quality and incentives. It is difficult to describe such an outcome as evidence of a uniformly applied education system.

The elite-institution gap makes the same point

The disparity is visible at the institutional level, too.

Narsingdi's Nasima Kadir Molla High School recorded a 100% GPA-5 rate among all 382 of its examinees this year. At the other end of the spectrum, 312 institutions nationwide recorded a 0% pass rate, up from 134 last year — more than double.

Both outcomes come from the same national examination. The difference cannot simply be attributed to the examination standard. It raises a more fundamental question: which students had functioning schools, trained teachers and access to additional academic support, and which did not?

The contrast between institutions suggests that student performance cannot be separated from the environments in which students learn.

What actually needs to change

Generic prescriptions such as "upskill teachers" and "invest more" may be valid, but they are insufficient without a mechanism for delivering those improvements.

Two concrete interventions deserve attention.

First, regulate the coaching market instead of pretending it does not exist. Private coaching has become a parallel, largely unaccounted-for tier of the education system that families with greater financial means are better positioned to access. Bringing the sector under some form of oversight — even if initially limited to collecting data on costs, participation and reach — would help establish how much of "student performance" is actually family income in disguise.

Second, target resource allocation at the 312 zero-pass institutions rather than distributing resources across the sector broadly. A national teacher-training initiative spread across more than 30,000 institutions risks having little impact on schools facing the most acute problems.

Targeted interventions — including trained subject teachers, closer monitoring and measurable performance benchmarks — at schools recording zero passes would provide a clearer test of whether the problem can be addressed through resources and institutional support, or whether deeper structural problems are at play.

The next SSC cycle will offer more evidence.

But blaming students for not studying, when the results appear to show substantial differences across income, institutional capacity and academic streams, is no longer a sufficient explanation.

Nusrat Jahan Puthee is a contributor. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.