The questions school leadership asks first

No. The system runs a first round and flags where it's unsure. The teacher reviews those flags, spot-checks the rest, and sets the grades. Tests near the pass / fail line always go entirely through the teacher's hands.

On the homepage, an example shows how the system flags a doubt and how you set the grade yourself.

With the right precautions, yes — and those precautions are built into the training itself. Only pseudonymized tests are used, processing runs through a fixed processing line managed by Teacherhelp within the EU, and how your school's SharePoint connection is set up is discussed beforehand with your data protection officer.

See data protection for the full explanation.

Then the teacher explains how they arrived at that grade — exactly as today. Because the teacher always sets the grades themselves and the grading guide is documented in writing, that explanation is actually better supported than in a traditional grading round.

That's not incidental. It's the reason the line sits where it sits.

The approach works wherever a grading guide can be written down — which is nearly every subject, because that guide is already in your head. For open questions, texts, and worked exercises, the payoff is greatest. For pure multiple choice, there's little to gain, since that's already automatic.

Languages, math, science and social studies, technical subjects: the distinction between clear-cut and borderline looks the same in every subject.

Yes, and the case for it is usually stronger: several hundred exams per course, with the same deadline for submitting grades.

There's also an advantage in your favor. The first round is already handed off to teaching assistants there, so the principle doesn't need explaining to anyone. What the training adds is the written-out grading guide — which makes the first round faster and ensures different assistants grade the same question the same way.

Yes. The amount of work per test is lower, but the number of tests is higher and the teacher covers every subject themselves — so the total grading load is comparable.

What is different: less is digital in primary education, and that weighs more heavily. Whether it's worth it depends more here than elsewhere on how the work comes in today. That gets assessed honestly in the intake conversation.

Then a scanning step gets added, and that's immediately the weakest link: handwriting has to be legible. For a school where everything is on paper, the payoff is smaller and sometimes not worth the effort. That gets assessed honestly in the intake conversation, before you book a day.

On scanned paper: less well, and that isn't presented as better than it is. What a machine can't read, it also can't grade.

But it's worth noting that this problem already exists today. A student who writes the correct answer illegibly loses points to their handwriting instead of their knowledge today, without any technology involved, and the teacher loses time deciphering it. Taking tests digitally solves that, even without anything else changing.

In primary education, it's different: there, handwriting itself is a learning goal, and a paper test belongs.

That's one of the two questions that shape the day. There are ways to work without installation, but they're more cumbersome. If the laptops are fully locked down, a conversation with your IT department is a precondition, not a detail.

For the first batch: little to nothing, because the grading guide still needs to be written. The payoff comes in the batches after that. Concrete numbers will appear on this site once they've been measured at the first school — numbers that haven't been measured don't belong here.

Yes. What the team learns on the training day may be shared internally. The grading guides written on the day remain the school's property.

A room with a projector, working wifi, a laptop for each participant, and a real, already-graded batch of tests per participant. That last one matters: it lets everyone compare the proposal against their own judgment.

Yes, and that's usually the wisest way to start. The half day is designed as an introduction for the team, without setting up on real tests. Afterward, you decide whether the full day makes sense.