In late May 2026, as complaints about the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) On-Screen Marking (OSM) system piled up, reports emerged that CBSE circulated a social-media “playbook” to school principals. The objective, according to the coverage, was to ensure schools posted consistent messaging that would defend the evaluation process and calm students amid widespread frustration.
This prompted a wave of Instagram reels and similar videos from multiple schools, including government run Kendriya Vidyalayas and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, repeating closely aligned talking points and urging students to trust the system.
Below is a clear breakdown of what the article says happened, what schools allegedly shared, and why the controversy escalated online.
The Backdrop: Mounting Complaints Over OSM
The story begins with a simple reality: OSM-related issues were becoming harder to ignore. As complaints increased, the frustration was largely driven by reports of problems such as mismatches between expected and received results, difficulties with the re-evaluation/portal process, technical failures and crashes during high-traffic periods, issues including missing pages, blurry images, and other discrepancies.
As many students turned to social media to voice grievances, the tone of public conversation began shifting from “technical teething problems to “systemic failures.
The Alleged Social Media Toolkit: “Material for Principals
According to the report, CBSE sent principals something described as a social media playbook titled “Material for Principals.”
The toolkit reportedly contained scripted talking points principals were expected to read out, instructions to present CBSE as proactive, empathetic, and communicative regarding the issues, and guidance to tell students that if they find discrepancies, they should be directed to CBSE’s official re-evaluation process.
The document also reportedly defended OSM’s underlying rationale, arguing that the system improves the “structural integrity” of assessment, evaluator focus on content rather than arithmetic, transparency and standardization, alignment with the National Education Policy and even environmental friendliness through reduced reliance on paper processes.
Perhaps most pointedly, the document advised principals to reassure students that no child should suffer due to technical errors.
How Schools Responded: Reels That Sounded “Scripted”
Following the directives (as reported), hundreds of schools including Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) reportedly posted videos defending OSM.
Many of these clips reportedly used language that closely mirrored the circulated material.
A few examples mentioned in the report include a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya principal reportedly praising OSM and claiming proper evaluation, adding that students would benefit in the coming years.
A Kendriya Vidyalaya video featuring a Grade XII student expressing satisfaction with marks and stating the student didn’t blame OSM for the irregularities.
A principal from Delhi Public School Siliguri reportedly quoting the document directly and framing the implementation as “positive,” emphasizing fairness and transparency.
A teacher (described in the report as allegedly having worked in the evaluation process) publicly praising OSM as beneficial and time-saving.
Interestingly, one school’s principal also suggested that posting such a video was an institutional choice not necessarily a response to the toolkit.
Emerging Controversies: Students, Endorsements, and Credibility Questions
While some schools framed their posts as reassurance, the backlash came from a different direction: students and observers questioned whether promotional endorsements were appropriate during an active trust crisis.**
Two types of controversies appeared in the coverage:
1) Claims about students being asked to endorse OSM: The article references claims such as a Reddit post by a student that teachers asked students to share content suggesting they had “no problem” with OSM checking. The report notes that the claim was not independently verified and that the student described feeling “traumatised” even after passing.
2) Questions about “toppers” from earlier batches promoting OSM: A separate allegation (via X) claimed that toppers from a Kendriya Vidyalaya were being asked to endorse OSM even though it had reportedly been introduced only this year. Social media users questioned why students from earlier batches appeared in promotional clips, especially if they did not experience the same system as the current cohort.
In short: the more schools posted reassuring content, the more some users wondered whether the messaging was meant to restore reputational control rather than address specific student grievances.
CBSE’s Response: “We Didn’t Instruct Anyone to Post Videos”. The report also includes CBSE’s side. A senior official (anonymous, as cited by the reporting) told Hindustan Times that CBSE did not instruct anybody to post any video in their favour.
That statement set up a central tension of the controversy: on one hand, schools appeared to follow similar language and messaging; on the other hand, CBSE officials denied issuing an instruction to create promotional content.
The Real Issue Isn’t Just Technology, It’s Trust. OSM is, on paper, a modern evaluation approach. But trust is fragile in education systems—especially when exam results determine careers, scholarships, and futures.
When students experience mismatches, portal problems, and re-evaluation uncertainty, then reassurance alone may not be enough. People want clear fixes, transparent timelines, accountable explanations, and credible processes that students can verify.
That is why “don’t panic” messaging if perceived as scripted can backfire even when the system eventually improves.
What This Means Going Forward
Whether you view the reels as harmless reassurance or as a reputational strategy, the incident highlights a broader lesson for education governance:
1. Communication must be specific to the failures. Generic calm-down messaging won’t satisfy students experiencing concrete problems.
2. Reform requires transparency, not just PR. Students will ask “What changed? What’s the evidence? How are errors prevented?”
3. Endorsements during backlash need careful handling. Even when principals believe they are helping, public perception matters—especially when the system’s credibility is already under scrutiny.
The CBSE OSM controversy shows how quickly technical systems become political and emotional when outcomes affect students’ lives.
A reported playbook for principals, followed by a flood of reels using matching talking points, created a backlash that moved beyond OSM itself—toward questions of authenticity, transparency, and whether students’ concerns were being addressed or managed.
